Twitter War: The Future-Shock Of Politics

In 1970 Alvin Toffler wrote the book Future Shock which postulated that the extreme increase in the rate of societal change--driven by technology--would leave us stressed and disoriented. Four decades later it looks sorta quaint (or at least ahead of its time) and looking back, whatever changes technology wrought, most of the immediately visible changes seem to be in the realm of the cell phone.

But what if there's a Future Shock component to politics that we're missing--that we're mistaking for something else?

I've Seen The Future Brother, It Is Murder
We don't have flying cars (give it a decade), fusion power (hey, 4 years), robotic house-servants (2040--you'll live to see it if you take your fish oil),  or rocket pants (disappointing)--but we do have something else: Twitter.

The House recently posed the 37th vote to repeal ObamaCare (for a few reasons--one of which is to allow House freshmen to tell their constituents they tried--but another is, perhaps, to have some subtle psychological impact on the acceptance of the law) and, of course, it didn't go anywhere. But this time around Darrel Issa (a leading Republican critic of the administration) encouraged a particular hashtag meme, #ObamaCareInThreeWords, which encouraged participants (detractors) to describe the ACA in three pithy words (my bet was on Total Terrible Tyranny!).

There were many entries. By turns insightful (Still largely unread), dismal (doctors are quitting), scary (TSA with stethoscopes), hopeful (pre-existing conditions covered), pedantic (Affordable Care Act), and funny (Do Not Resuscitate). The use of Twitter as a battle-space is nothing new--but (at least somewhat) noteworthy was the White House's entry into the fray:

I Read This In The Judge Dredd Voice

The response was quick!

The (conservative) site Twitchy blasts the headline:

‘It’s. The. Law.’: White House sneering tweet rubs Obamacare in faces

US News weights in:

White House Sasses GOP On Obamacare: 'It’s The Law’

Salon opines:

White House trolls Republicans over Obamacare hashtag

And so on.

So 'Effing What?
Or, as Hillary might say, what difference does it make? Here's what I think: although the smart money is on the idea that whatever the circumstances in congress are right now, we've seen them before (or worse) there are elements of the current dynamic that are actually and legitimately new. In this case? On-line instant-media peer-to-peer trolling and counter-trolling.

Here are two recent articles (not about the twitter war) that take on Obama and the scandals. The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan writes:

The president, as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him. He's shocked, it's unacceptable, he'll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you.

But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department.

A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is to too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too.

Over in Commentary we see a similar theme in the article:

Obama is the Ultimate Ad Hominem PresidentPresident Obama is once again engaging in what psychiatrists refer to as projection, in which people lay their worst attributes on others.

In this instance, the most hyper-partisan president in modern times is ascribing that trait to Congressional Republicans. 

There's, of course, enough irony to eclipse Alanis Morissette here--it's not as though the GOP should be throwing any stones in the hyper-partisan direction--but the relevant issue isn't that people are accusing the president of being partisan or arrogant or whatever--that's old hat.

What's new here is the battle-space where this is happening. Oh, sure, the WSJ and Commentary are both ultimately paper-products--artifacts of an age that has already passed and is still hanging around like the last few dinosaurs, shedding their feathers, on the way to the tar-pits. But despite the medium of those two above messages being so last century the fact is that narrative echoes what we're not just hearing about--but actually seeing in real-time--in a very 21st century context: Twitter.

This may very well be the first historical epoch where a presidential administration can publicly troll its adversaries (and, of course, be trolled) in real-time, peer-to-peer and without making observers feel it is degrading itself. I'm pretty sure Obama himself didn't write the tweet and may not even have had to approve it--but does anyone think for a moment that if it came across his desk he'd shoot it down?

No. He doesn't have to be an arrogant, projecting instigator to do that either: the battle was already engaged and all he has to do is be young enough and (moderately) hip enough to know that he's got the valuable capability to join the fray.

That blackberry on his hip? That's the modern-day six-shooter he rode into office with (and, you know, yeah: today that looks awfully antique ... a blackberry ... he might as well have a beeper clipped to his belt--amirite?). He's might be the last blackberry president but I'll lay odds he won't be the last tweeting one.

Today, if you are one of the people who really, really hates Obama, he's not just walled up in an enclave thousands of miles away ... when you "go out into the world" (fire up your twitter feed) he electronically steps into your home and smacks you right on the nose.

Is it any wonder people are starting to get more polarized?

Is This Obama's Fault?
On the off chance I'm not clear enough above, I'm not blaming Obama for divisive partisanship ... I'm pointing at Twitter ... social media ... machine-gun rate blog-postings, and 24-7 partisan network news as the enabling factor--not individual personalities. I suspect that, transported to modern day, most presidents (and, far more likely even, most House Representatives) would engage in partisan tweeting and tweaking.

In a sense they'd be foolish not to: if someone somewhere is going to do it, you probably don't score any points for sitting it out (ask John Kerry about the Swift Boat guys). But if partisan politics and a willingness to stir the pot are nothing new, the methods by which we can do this and the speed at which this can happen are. It used to be impolite to discuss politics around the dinner table--maybe it still is ... but have you looked at Facebook recently?

If there's a standard of decorum there I don't want to see what's out of bounds! To think that this doesn't have an effect is naive. Having partisan political messages--even fairly juvenile or humorous ones--shoved in our faces on a constant basis (and make no mistake: if you've ever woken up at 3 AM and seen some Facebook posting alert on your phone, you know it's constant) certainly does have an impact. It probably hardens us--calcifies our positions--obscures key facts behind point-scoring and rhetoric--and moves us, inexorably, towards an us-vs-them dynamic.

Welcome to the future.

Scandalishious!

It's a perfect-storm of breaking scandals as the Obama administration enters its second term. Let's take a look at what's going on and what the likely fallout is going to be.

It's That Time Of Year
Business Insider notes that (a) this is prime-time for some scandals (second term, no major news) and (b) what's on the table (if not Obama's head on a platter) is the 2014 midterm elections:

Indeed, these stories are coming at the perfect time for peak scandal coverages. Brendan Nyhan notes that scandals more often happen when the president is detested by members of the other party, as Obama is. Likewise, they are more likely to become big news when there aren't other news stories like the Boston bombings. Finally, scandals are more likely to take place in the beginning of the second term.

Therefore, the question is whether declining trust in the government has historically played a major factor in midterm elections. It turns out that it does. When trust in government falls, the party in the White House tends to do worse in midterm elections.

Let's take a look at the current state of breaking scandals (and Fast and Furious because, why not) and see what they look like comparatively.

Fast And Furious
The Scandal: A justice department program to track guns sold to Mexican cartels allowed hundreds of weapons to illegally cross the boarder and arm narco-soldiers. Boarder agent Brian Terry was shot and killed with one of these guns. The charges are that the program was poorly conceived ("Let's give the bad guys more guns--what could go wrong!?") and also miss-managed. Less publicized: something similar happened under the Bush administration.

Reach: This was more or less a 'sound-and-furry' scandal which was heavily promoted by conservative media and received little attention elsewhere. The message was complicated by the fact that the charges were promoted as something like Iran-Contra while the reality was more about mid-level managerial incompetence. It also didn't help that, probably, the media led most people to think of Vin Diesel.

Damage Assessment: Fast and Furious, ultimately, got nothing and (perhaps) made it look like the GOP was crying wolf.

Lesson: Name your next quasi-legal operation Star Wars Episode VII.

Benghazi
The Scandal: On 9/11 2012 a terrorist attack in Libya killed four Americans including our ambassador. The GOP charged that (a) the administration was asleep at the wheel and should have done something to save our people, (b) that the administration lied and lied hard in the days following to claim it was not terrorism (but rather a protest gone wrong ... with mortar shells), (c) that there was a cover-up possibly involving the CIA selling weapons to Syria (or something), and (d) that there was procedural mis-management that led, ultimately to Hillary Clinton who had better not run in 2016 ... just saying.

Reach: The Benghazi scandal got decent coverage--with ABC and CBS, despite the GOP narrative, breaking key elements--but it never got the coverage that the Republican base wanted. This was further complicated by the fact that during the most recent go-round the (emotional) hearings were trumped by the Cleveland Kidnapping case. This moved Rush Limbaugh to opine that 'The administration had gotten away with it.'

Damage Assessment: The Obama-damage was (a) three fired staffers (from the internal investigation which did, indeed, find some incompetence) and (b) Susan Rice who might've been Secretary of State. The real damage, however, was Mitt Romney who issued a foot-in-mouth press release the day of the attack and then fumbled his line of attack in the second debate.

Lesson: Go after Hillary first--everything else was nonsense.

IRS Gate
The Scandal: The IRS was intentionally targeting conservative groups based on whether or not they sounded patriotic. They issued a weak "uh ... we're sorry--but it wasn't that bad." It turns out, on inspection, it was that bad.

Reach: Deep. John Stewart ripped the Obama administration last night and it looks like there's no mitigating circumstances here. It's not, after all, like the IRS probes discovered these groups were cheating on their taxes or anything. What it appears, however, is that there is little to tie this to anyone outside the IRS.

Damage Assessment: The main damage will be to the trust-level of the population and 2014 elections. This will motivate the GOP base and breathe new life into the Tea Party. Furthermore, with a boost from the related scandals, this one will lend credibility to, for example, Benghazi.

Meter is purple because it's not played out yet

Lesson: Do your damn job, IRS guys.

AP Gate
The Scandal: The Justice Department apparently obtained a massive group of phone records from AP reporters trying to find out who sourced a leak to them. This is possibly "quasi-legal" under the PATRIOT Act but the breadth of the search seems to be (a) unprecedented and (b) a chilling intrusion against the press who would like to be able to use anonymous sources without having to worry that everyone's phone records will be checked. NOTE: To my knowledge, the data is only who-called-who and not the conversations or any call content.

Reach: It's getting major play and AP has a pretty loud bull-horn. Combined with the IRS story, this will get play. To be clear: the issue here is not precisely the legality ... the illegality ... or the cover-up of the event (I'm not clear on that)--it's that (a) whatever else is true, it looks bad and (b) the IRS-Scandal acts as a sort of "booster rocket" / complimentary wave-form which amplifies whatever is wrong with the AP probe.

The AP thing, by itself, might turn out to be nothing--but combined with the for-real and for-real-really-bad IRS scandal, this thing is, at best a molehill on top of a mountain.

Damage Assessment: I'm going to go with Eric Holder. It's, maybe, a bit optimistic--but the Obama administration will need to do something serious to put some daylight between him and this wave of scandals and canning Holder might do that. We'll see.

Lesson: Abuse of power is a poison.

What Do I Think?
I have three observations:

1. So far none of these look like they may reach the impeachment level (although if the Republicans take the Senate in 2014 that may happen). If the GOP had played its cards more carefully with Fast and Furious and Benghazi they might be better positioned to capitalize on the current, real, scandals. They would be well advised to play their cards carefully here and make strategic--rather than base-oriented tactical--decisions.
2. The political terrain is, of course, all about Hillary. That's what Benghazi Part 2 (3?) looked like to a lot of people and, of course, it was (whatever else it was about, it certainly was also about Hillary '16). If the GOP had gone after her first instead of Obama, then Rice, then Hillary ... they might've got her.
3. Team Obama is already having a narrative crisis around not being able to do anything. While this appears to be 'the Republican's fault' they have a card to play (give us the House in 2014!)--these scandals make it look like maybe they don't deserve it. They are a gift to the GOP under these conditions: this is exactly what Obama didn't want to happen.

Is Iron Man 3 A Truther Movie?

Note: This contains a major spoiler for Iron Man 3.

Blog reader Bilbo writes:

I just saw the film yesterday and enjoyed it immensely, though I disagree with you about the politics. Attempts have been made to make a 9/11 Truther movie in Hollywood, and all such attempts have been shot down. So if a filmmaker wants to include any kind of Truther theme, it must be done subtly. For example, in the second Sherlock Holmes movie, the terrorists are controlled by Moriarti, who wants to make money selling weapons. But here in Iron Man 3, the subtlety wears very thin. After the Mandarin is exposed as a fake, there is even a line about Osama bin Laden. I would need to see the film again to remember the exact quote. Either that or find the script somewhere online. But the connection between the Mandarin and Osama bin Laden both being masks used by others is made explicitly. So yes, there is politics. Thanks to Robert Downey, Jr., the movie is too big for Hollywood to shoot it down, and the closest thing to a "Truther film" is now out there.

Is that true? Let's take a look.

1. What Would A Major Hollywood Truther Movie Look Like?
Fortunately, we do not have to guess. There is/was one in the works. Here is the poster:

The Truth Is Out There

This is a slated-for-2015 (maybe) release that would, purportedly  star Charlie Sheen and Woody Harrelson giving us the full-force Truther experience. It's being made by a studio that has already put out one conspiracy movie about the Oklahoma bombing. I'm not sure which version of the 9/11 story September Morn would propose but, certainly, this would be a pretty major event on the basis of casting alone.

According to what I've found on Google, though, it may well not get made. Buzz has gone silent ... and the official film page doesn't mention the big name stars ... and the web-site on the poster isn't active.

Conspiracy? Let's look ...

2. So No 9/11 Movies Got Made?
Uh--no. There have been at least two 'fictional' movies about 9/11 Truther conspiracies. Both were independent releases (as is September Morn--but at least it has big stars). You can read a take on them here:

Needless to say, the Truthers have yet to find their Chris Carter or Oliver Stone. These movies repackage 9/11 skepticism in an accessible format, but they're practically inscrutable without descending further into the rabbit hole. Able Danger can only be understood by reading The Big Wedding by Sander Hicks, an indie journalist whose version of 9/11 involves an alliance of Islamists, neo-Nazis, technofascists, and a Republican "pedophilia cult." And God help you if you turn on the droning filmmakers' commentary on The Reflecting Pool dvd.

They are out there, but--in the ancient language of the Illuminati conspiracy--I strongly suspect they are 'oring-bay.'

This should not be a surprise: they are at best 'edu-tainment' and at worst outrageous and over-earnest without having the built-in documentary back-bone to carry that weight. That, however, is going to be true for any 9/11 Truther movie. There is no escaping that structural problem.

There is another issue: these are movies many film-goers (more than 60% of us) will find offensive (and, the Bush Administration having moved on, the movie-makers will have little choice but to blame both Bush and Obama--which should make everyone angry at them).

In other words: might the reason we haven't seen a 9/11 major movie be because it would be a bad idea from a studio perspective and not a conspiracy? How would we tell?

3. What Would A Movie Have To Do To Be a Major-Studio Crypto-Truther Movie?
I think we can all agree that a movie may make use of certain themes or ideas in a superficial manner. Capricorn One has a faked Mars landing--which recalls the moon-landing-hoax theories--but it does not "blow the roof" off the moon-landing. Nor does it actually address the various skeptic's questions (there are no stars! The rock has a 'C' on it! The flag is standing up with no breeze!). It just takes the idea and builds a movie around O.J. Simpson with it.

So what if Iron Man 3 is doing that? How would we tell the difference?

I think the way we would tell the difference is:

1. Iron Man 3 puts some real weight into the big reveal around The Mandarin--it doesn't just use the Truther-style stuff as stuffing--but actually shines a spot-light on it and tries to get it into the audience's heads ... to make them think.
2. Iron Man 3 actually beaks a taboo--it does something no one else has been able to do. It's "Too Big To Fail" so the (theoretical) Hollywood gatekeepers can't stop it.

Fair enough?

Let's see!

Is Iron Man 3 Emotionally Invested In 9/11 Trutherism?
In order to meet our first requirement, the movie in question has to be using 9/11 Trutherism as a gut-punch. It needs to have more than the trappings of the theory to be a torch-bearer for the theory. At very least it needs to:

1. Establish the key foundational elements of 9/11 Truth: (1) that the government was complicit or even behind 9/11 (or similar mass killing) (2) that the cover-up has been done by control of the media, (3) that Bin Laden is a patsy* and (4) the government is using this to curtail our civil liberties.
2. It would need to provide an emotional climax where this marks a major turning point for the protagonist (and the audience).
3. It would need to provide some link between the real-world and the movie-world in order for the audience to take the question out of the movie and into real-life. That link would have to be more than just name-dropping--but actual 'evidence' (such as the 

So far as I see it, Iron Man 3 does not meet these requirements. In IM3:

1. The only foundational element of 9/11 Trutherism is that Bin Laden is a patsy. The involvement of the Vice President is of the LHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) version of 9/11 Conspiracy Theory--which is not the "inside job" version and the VP is given an explicit and very personal reason for siding with AIM: he wants the healing technology for his crippled daughter. This personal-actor-for-personal reasons deal is not part of 9/11 Trutherism (which requires a much larger multi-agency conspiracy and necessarily implicates the whole government). There is no evidence of any sort in IM3 that the government is doing anything to take over or leverage the explosions to control the populace.
2. There is no indication that the media or the narrative around IM3's bombings is being manipulated or suppressed.
3. It does hit #3--Bin Laden (in this case The Mandarin) is a fraud. But this is the only one.
4. The discovery is not an emotional climax for Tony Stark or the audience. It is played for laughs. The threat is not greatly reduced and nothing material is gained (Stark's princess is, alas, in another castle).
5. There is no real-world-link: The use of the name Bin Laden--which may or may not appear in the movie--is not sufficient. The audience will not be given "things to think about." Whatever the theory of OBL's role in 9/11 Trutherism, it is generally conceded that he was not a British actor who had never even considered any kind of violence. The Mandarin is too over-the-top for Trutherism.

On the other hand ...

There Is A Better Candidate For a Major Hollywood Truther Movie

Our second requirement for IM3 being 'the' Hollywood Truther movie is that there's nothing that's clearly better out there--that IM3 crosses some line that has not previously been crossed. I think IM3's Truther-score has already been exceeded: By the Wachowski Brothers' 2005 movie V for Vendetta. With V, we have: 

1. The government is behind a mass killing using a manufactured plague.
2. The state run media ('the BBC' or an analogue) is complicit in covering it up.
3. The government has used the plague to seize control of the state.
4. There is no OBL analogue--but the reveal is meant to be important and unsettling. In this case it takes a "victim-less crime" and puts a face to it.
5. There is no real-world link--but I think one could argue that it helped launch the real-world iconography of Anonymous / Guy Fawks.

I think this still makes a better case for being a 9/11 Truther movie as it, in my opinion, hits more of the key elements and they are far more central to the story and the message (don't trust the government they'll kill you to take control).

4. Conclusions
I don't think the IM3 qualifies as "the" Hollywood Truther Movie. With V for Vendetta hitting what I would say are more of the salient points (the government orchestrates the mass-kill, it's done to remove civil liberties, and the media is compliant in the cover-up) and the lack of real emotional investment in the Mandarin being a puppet, I think it's hard to make the case that IM3 is doing something that hasn't been done before.

Basically, I think it's just clever (the press-materials really do make it look like Iron Man will face The Mandarin) and funny (Ben Kingsley is chosen, wisely, for comedic potential--rather than anything having to do with believably). Iron Man 3 isn't going to make anyone think any harder about 9/11 unless they were already skeptical of it.

---

* There are several things that the major 9/11 Truther documentary Loose Change is somewhat contradictory about. One of them is that Bin Laden is either (a) the guy behind the planes--but working for the US Government (the movie states he was treated, as an honored guest, in hospitals manned by the US in the middle east prior to 9/11) or maybe (b) wasn't involved at all--the movie of him taking credit doesn't look anything like him and gets key elements wrong or maybe (c) there weren't manned planes at all--they were remote-controlled.

Loose Change spreads these concepts out through its run-time so they don't typically bump into one another--and it always stops short of presenting an operational scenario (which, presumably, would be easily falsified). For example, if I have remote-controlled planes with jet-fuel on them, why bother with controlled demolitions at all? Why not just crash planes into the towers and let them burn--the aftermath will result in the towers coming down anyway. Even if they don't fall it'll be sufficient justification for any war you could want.

Another contradiction in 9/11 documentaries is that media reports are seen as truthful (Flight 93 landed safely in Ohio!) until they are not (Oh, sorry--I got that wrong). It has been explicitly said by some that reports closer to the time of the event are more accurate as the cover-up has not had time to set in. This also flies in the face of operational planning where the cover-story has to be manufactured before the event.

It also flies in the face of common sense: is a massive, frantic quest for data--any-data--without fact checking or time for examination more likely to produce the truth or not? If you think it would, consider that you are also suggesting that doing your writing in a drunken rushed haze is more likely to produce good grammar than careful proof-reading ... or that things like the scientific method and controlled experiments will probably produce worse data than seat-of-your-pants trial and error.

The Politics Of: Atlas Shrugged Part 2

Then Atlas Went To Soak In The Jacuzzi

I had a chance to see the second part of the cinematic adaptation of Ayn Rand's seminal work Atlas Shrugged. In the first part I'll discuss the movie. In the second, the politics, where there will be spoilers.

The Movie
Atlas Shrugged Part II takes us back to the Rand-verse where, in the not so far future, government kleptocrats have tightened their stranglehold on all industry. Gas is north of $40.00/gallon and city streets are all but empty of cars. Planes no longer fly (save for very expensive chartered jets), and trains are now--again--the major method of long distance travel.

Worse, the great minds of industry (and some in the arts) have been vanishing. Are they being abducted? Are they being killed by rivals? Who is John Galt? (It turns out John Galt has been meeting with them and making them an offer that none of them refuse--the content of which we get a glimpse of in this movie).

Following on Part 1--and hewing, I'd say, reasonably close to Rand's massive book--this middle chapter takes us from the time when the government comes down full-force on Rearden Steel (run by captain of industry Hank Rearden played by Jason Beghe). They mostly leave his lover (mistress is too low a word: Rearden is married--but it's a purely and explicitly loveless marriage) Dagny Taggart (Samantha Mathis) alone as she has stepped back from running the last great rail empire: Taggart Transcontinental.

Specifically, she's left it in the hands of her brother (Patrick Fabian) who is in bed with the government moochers--even as their mandates and rules continue to eat away at his ability to run a business at all.

The movie is a message: the book explained critical elements of her philosophy, Objectivism, in story-form. The narrative does include a love story and she does give her characters more than one dimension--but every page is carefully built on the foundations of the philosophy she was explaining (you can note how, in the first movie, no matter what the disaster, the characters always pay their check at the restaurant before dashing out).

Is it preachy? Slightly--yes. But not overly so. Notably, the antagonists in Atlas Shrugged are the other wealthy elite. You see the poor--but mostly they just want to work. It is not about the wealthy vs. Occupy Wall Street but rather the Wealthy vs. The Government (the liberal government, anyway).

Is it good? I'd say it is. It suffers from middle-of-the-trilogy syndrome so it doesn't really "begin at the beginning" and its end is something of a cliffhanger. It gets the pageantry of the super-rich of the Rand-verse pretty well: the director knew how to throw a party. The production had to hire all new actors this time around and while the cast is generally considered to be stronger in Part II I did miss some of the Part 1 actors (specifically Grant Bowler who's slightly hapless smile managed to convey that Hank Rearden was a really, really good sport about all the abuse he was taking).

Still, it's a bit of a shock.

It got mediocre reviews and I wouldn't recommend it as a stand-alone movie: anyone seeing Part 2 had better see Part 1--but if you liked Part 1 even a little you'll probably be fine with Part 2. If you saw Part 1 and couldn't stand it? Well, there's no point.

Let's do the politics!

The Politics Of Atlas Shrugged Part II
At first I was a bit stymied: how can one "do the politics" of Atlas Shrugged Part Anything when the entire book is a political / philosophical essay? I mean--I could just have one line: 'Study the heck out of Objectivism' and call it a day. Any deep discussion of Objectivism will require--if you are talking to an actual objectivist--that you have done all and I mean all of the reading.

Good luck with that: even summarizing Objectivism is something I'm "not qualified" to do (according to Objectivists I have talked to). But then I realized there was an angle I was legitimately curious about--and it's this: is the movie (Part 2, for this discussion) Objectivist ... or is it Libertarian? [ OMINOUS CRACKLE OF THUNDER ]

Let me tell you a joke:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well, are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are your Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, Me too! Are your Episcopalian or Baptist? He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are your Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord? He said, Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are your Original Baptist Church of God or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

To most people Libertarians and Objectivists look a lot a like--at least from 30,000 30 feet away. They're not--just ask one. Oh, sure, there are some similarities (vague ones):

Here there are two close substitutes; the world can barely distinguish between what it sees as the Tweeddledee of libertarianism and the Tweedledum of Objectivism [ You can, by this one line, tell where the author fell! ]. Both favour freedom; both oppose welfare; neither supports socialism; both are against anything but laissez faire capitalism. 

The reason this is of interest with Atlas Shrugged is because it was made, in part, by Tea Party types (allegedly) and while they were certainly fans of Rand they may not have been pure ideological Objectivists. So ... let's look!

So ... Is ASII Libertarian ... Or Objectivist?
The driving force behind the Atlas Shrugged movies is John Aglialoro--a Tea Party superstar--with some help from Freedomworks--also a Tea Party promoter (and the Tea Party is neither Objectivist nor, entirely, Libertarian--although they fall much closer to the latter than the former). I've no doubt Aglialoro has towering respect for Ayn Rand, at least in his own mind, but I suspect that "any adaptation" made without full cognizant adherence to Rand's philosophy simply cannot propagate it from the page to the screenplay to the screen.

It is also critical to note that the trilogy, being created now, is being created as a political tool--with the help from political agencies (Freedomworks). Atlas Shrugged Part 1 was released when it was with the hopes of influencing the election. The messages that get promoted here too, may be calculated more for their political impact than for their philosophical teaching. You can see this with an appearance by Sean Hannity in the movie: he's not an Objectivist--but is appealing to the Tea Party audiences.

If that were the case, it would be libertarian--even if it only touches on the areas where Libertarians agree with Objectivists. The principal differences between libertarians and objectivists are, I would say, as follows:

1. Libertarianism is a political position--freedom as opposed to tyranny. It has certain rules but no consistent philosophical base. Objectivism, conversely, arrives at many of the same rules (No Initiation of Force) but comes about them differently--from specific, consistent objectivist principles. Libertarinaism has a larger tent. Objectivism has specific underpinnings for each rule (so there might be a distinction in Libertarian vs. Objectivism on, for example, retaliatory strikes).
2. Libertarians and Objectivists see a substantial difference in the role of the state, laws, and crime. Take for example whether or not a citizen in either regime could forgive an assault. Under libertarianism, the citizen (presumably a pacifist) could tell an arresting officer not to haul off an attacker. Under an objectivist regime, presumably, if the law was violated ... it was violated. There is also a question about the innate coercive nature of states and the requirement for a standardized philosophy for successful government (Objectivist, presumably)--something libertariansim does not have.

Looking at the plot, I think Atlas Shrugged Part 2 has four 'critical' scenes where the philosophy is most exposed. These are:

1. The Francisco d'Anconia speech at James Taggart's wedding--which is about the value and goodness of money.
2. The Hank Rearden trial where he is brought before the judges for failure to comply with the Fair Share Law (and sells coal to the guy who pays for it rather than who the government tells him to).
3. The Winston Tunnel Disaster where the eventually mismanagement of the railway under the boot of the government leads to a crash with hundreds of deaths.
4. The government requirement that patent holders sign over their patents to the government as "gifts" (when Readen refuses, they threaten to ruin Dagney Taggart's reputation with blackmail photos of her going out with him--a married man!)

The Money Speech

The money speech:

The link is to a person from the Ayn Randian  Atlas Society discussing the speech and its meaning (that, alone, is a fair Objectivist-endorsement). The speech in the movie was cut down a lot (listen to a computer reading of it here). If you compare the two of them there are similarities--but there are also differences. Specifically these differences are:

1. The book speech exalts the intellect and the mind as the source by which value is created. That is left out of the movie speech.
2. The book speech makes the case that money is the tool of deals for the participant's own benefit only (and that you will, philosophically, never use money in a deal that is not to your advantage)--that the common bond of men is the exchange of goods (which links to their reason) and not the sharing of misery.
3. It points out that the degree of productiveness is the degree of a man's reward.
4. The book speech notes that money will not give a code of value, a focus, or ideas if he has none--it will not make up for weakness--it will only help you realize what you already have in mind. 
5. Only the man who does not need it, says the book speech, is fit to inherent wealth (as he would make it wherever he started).

Conversely the movie speech hits on:

1. The measure of a man is not in having money--but in how he got it.
2. That making money from back-room deals and political manipulation is wrong.
3. It centers on the concept of "crony capitalism" (although not by that name)

The movie speech is the political element of the speech only--it leaves out the book's philosophical content. What is important in today's political environment is not the moral underpinnings of money and the philosophy around its exchange and moral virtue--but rather the influence of money on industry--specifically a few hot-button issues ("Crony Capitalism") like Soylendra.

None of what is in the movie is out of keeping with Objectivism--but it seems to me that the movie makers have chosen the middle ground where Objectivists and Libertarians agree in a way that highlights a specific issue that is of interest to the Republican party and the Tea Party. It does not introduce any philosophical issues about who should have money or how money functions in an ideal fashion which could possibly cloud the issue (and instruct viewers). This simplification is probably "necessary" for the length of the movie--but it also seems to me to be calculated.

Conclusion: Libertarian.

The Judgment Of Rearden
Here is the scene where Rearden is judged:
Here is audio-only from the book: Part 1, Part 2.

While the book is much longer the key elements are similar:

1. Rearden requires the government be overt in its use of force ("I won't participate--send guns").
2. The government cites the public good as its moral value. 
3. Hank does not recognize the public good as anything of value to him.

What is important, however, is the order in which these arguments are developed. In the book there is a great deal of emphasis placed on the idea that there is no public good and therefore any attempt to coerce him / take his stuff is cannibalism and thievery. In the movie it is the other way around: Rearden declares their actions thievery and then the court cites the public good as a defense.

The book also makes much more of Hank's refusal to cooperate. His refusal to enter a plea is in the movie but is comparatively shortened. I think this is because Rand is making the philosophical point that the court has no moral principals as its foundation whereas the movie is more focused on making the point that the court is coercive. 

This is subtle--and I think it leans Libertarian as the practical consequences (the government initiation of force) is 

Conclusion: Leans libertarian--by a hair.

The Tunnel Disaster
Two trains go into a tunnel (due to mismanagement)--no train leaves. I can find no video for it--but here's a link to an excerpt from the book. Note that Rand catalogs her victim's crimes against Objectivism before killing them:

The man in Bedroom H, Car No. 5, was a businessman who had acquired his business, an ore mine, with the help of a government loan, under the Equalization of Opportunity Bill.

The man in Drawing Room A, Car No 6, was a financier who had made a fortune by buying 'frozen' railway bonds and getting his friends in Washington to 'defreeze' them.

The man in Seat 5, Car No.7, was a worker who believed that he had "a right" to a job, whether his employer wanted him or not.

The woman in Roomette 6, Car no. 8, was a lecturer who believed that, as a consumer, she had "a right" to transportation, whether the railroad people wished to provide it or not.

The man in Roomette 2, Car No. 9, was a professor of economics who advocated the abolition of private property, explaining that intelligence plays no part in industrial production, that man's mind is conditioned by material tools, that anybody can run a factory or a railroad and it's only a matter of seizing the machinery.

The woman in Bedroom D, Car No. 10, was a mother who had put her two children* to sleep in the berth above her, carefully tucking them in, protecting them from drafts and jolts; a mother whose husband held a government job enforcing directives, which she defended by saying, 'I don't care, it's only the rich that they hurt. After all, I must think of my children.'

The idea in the book is, I think, to show, with concrete deaths, the wages of non-Objectivism. The movie, on the other hand,makes no mention of the mental state of anyone on the train (we get some conversation). Presumably innocents die (especially on the Army train)--but there's no direct tie-in to the philosophy or even to government mismanagement (if Kip had been a little more patient he'd be just as bad but alive). It wasn't high taxes or initiation of force that causes the collision either (nor was it Obama).

This makes the event not a philosophical one but rather a practical one. No matter how badly run the lines were there was no requirement for a spectacular disaster. It goes from a scene that makes an inescapable point (non-Objectivism or governmental influence kills people) to one that simply shows a possible outcome of some bad mangement.

Without the book's narrative judgment or a direct connection to Libertarian principals it lacks philosophical underpinnings for either Libertarianism or Objectivism.

Conclusion: Neither.

Taking Patents As Gifts
Hamsterdam Economics writes that Atlas Shrugged II high-lights how confused Ayn Rand was about intellectual property as she decries the government's forced taking of patents from their owners:

I think that Rearden’s position on this is a bit contradictory. He is indignant that the state would move to deprive him of his patents, thereby also depriving him of the fruits of his labors. But isn’t that what those patents do to others? Don’t they prevent others who develop similar products from bringing them to the market? ...

Furthermore, Rearden’s position seems to me to be a little bit disingenuous. After all, he opposes the state’s use of force. ...  At the same time, however, his patents themselves rest on just such a threat. I see this as something of a double standard.

If, indeed, mainstream libertarian thought is against patents (and copyright?) then, yes: this is Objectivist. I'll assume it is!

Conclusion: Objectivist.

Conclusion: Libertarian
I think that looking closely and carefully, the political requirements (like putting in Sean Hannity) and the requirements of making a movie (taking out the narrative judgment of each train rider) override the source material's philosophical underpinnings. The end result is the seminal Objectivist work of fiction has become a Libertarian artifact.

In a way you'd expect this to be good: the larger-tent position of Libertarians would encourage more people to see it. Thus, it would make more money. Rand-verse Galt Gulchians would approve (note: did not do well at box-office despite that).

---

* She ends with: "These passengers were awake; there was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas."--presumably either (a) the kids are either too young to be 'men'--or maybe were both daughters? In any event, uh, way to go Rand-verse.

The Politics Of: Iron Man 3

Iron Man 3 is the latest Marvel franchise movie from Disney featuring Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark: the man inside Iron Man. The review will be relatively un-spoiler-riffic and then we'll talk politics which will have spoilers.

The Movie
Man, oh man, is the Iron Man franchise lucky they cast Downey in the lead role. To be sure, the rest of the cast is good--and the multi-million dollar spectacle would be fun to watch even if there were someone less capable under the helmet--but that would only get it near greatness. By the 4th time we see Tony don the armor (three movies plus The Avengers) it would get pretty old if the guy playing Tony Stark didn't have mega-watt charisma.

Fortunately, Robert Downey Jr. does.

The third Iron Man movie is big, loud, makes very little sense (I'll discuss that in the politics section as it's a spoiler) but it's a hell of a ride. Downey inhabits Stark in a way that allows him to not just do the heavy lifting but pretty much carry the whole thing with the ease of his super strength-augmented character.

The story is a fairly convoluted mess: a master terrorist (The Mandarin) is setting off explosions around the world and in American and no one can stop him. There's a mysterious business-man who runs Advanced Idea Mechanics (AIM) and wants to do a deal with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) who now runs Stark Industries. Tony is hanging around for all of this but is way more involved with not-sleeping and working on new armor.

Stark has taken a backseat because he's dealing with post traumatic stress disorder over the alien invasion in The Avengers. When it turns out there may be some connection to the AIM guy, The Mandarin, and Potts, Stark becomes entangled (mostly due to the actions of his chief of security played by former director Jon Favrau).  Then we get to see if Tony Stark--the man under the mask--is actually a capable hero in and of himself--or if it's all just clever mechanics.

The story is not especially deep and it isn't trying to be dramatic--and that's a good thing: I keep waiting for these Iron Man movies to devolve into the maudlin mess that the Spiderman series did and, fortunately, they don't. Part of that is probably the writing and directorial intent. Part of that is the pretty much unique way that Downey can play Stark as a jerk and still make him lovable.

I believe that there is at both the studio/producer level and at the script-writer level a problem with making these superhero scripts: they are, at least, half, power-fantasy. Yes, Spiderman lives in a dump and has the world's worst boss--but when he's swinging around the city, being Spiderman is great. Yes, Tony Stark is an alcoholic--but he's also actively a playboy billionaire and, unlike Batman (where that's just a front) he gets to enjoy it. And wouldn't flying around in the Iron Man suit be a blast? Yes. Yes it would.

When writers (probably encouraged by producers who are afraid of making a 200-million-dollar kid's movie) try to find a dramatic core to the character beyond the origin story (which is usually somewhat dark) they mine it for relationships: The (not-illogical) assumption is that being an ego-maniac superhero would be hard on the family life. I believe there's also some implicit themes in Superhero movies that they're basically "adolescent." That is: they need to grow up. This isn't absurd: remember, to a degree, these characters were created and meant for young people. Kill Bill's The Bride isn't on too many first-grader lunch boxes.

The problem with using relationships to drive the emotional drama of superheroes is that it results in (a) domestic discord which is not fun to watch but probably does 'contrast nicely' with the power-fantasy heroics of the superhero identity in the opinion of writers and directors and other people with script approval and (b) results in the heroes inevitably having to "learn a lesson" about being more attentive to their girlfriends / wives to complete an arc. We've seen this in:

• Spiderman 3 ... interminably
• The Fantastic Four movies where the family drama isn't The Thing and The Human Torch--the kids--fighting (which was prevalent in the comics) but rather Mr. Fantastic and The Invisible Girl ... the parents
• The Green Lantern who, to be fair, really did need to grow up in that movie
• Batman falling out with Alfred in father-son dramatics
• Sometimes Superman not appreciating Lois Lane sufficiently

And so on.

In Iron Man 3 Stark needs to learn to appreciate Pepper Potts some more ... and he does.

Part of my problem with this, other than it being not so much fun to watch ... and predictable (and kind of trumped up: although those elements do exist in the comics, the comics themselves are not generally, nearly so filled with domestic strife) is that you take even a half-step back from the narrative you suddenly see that these women (it ... thus far ... is always women: I wonder what they'll do with Wonder Woman?) are really acting incredibly entitled and unbelievably self-centered.

This is not the message the script writers intend to convey--but look:

Mr. Fantastic is basically on the front-line of global defense against humanity-ending threats. If he's delaying a wedding because it looks like Australia might sink or something, that's not being an immature man-child--that's being the only guy in the world who can save billions.

Spiderman is out stopping murders no one else can stop: if you hear sirens in the middle of your "big talk" with the guy ... maybe that can wait a few--if someone dies because you guilt-ed him into staying ... what's that say about you? 

Batman is a justice-machine: if Alfred hurts his feelings he pauses for a moment and grumbles: I actually have feelings? News to me. Punk. 

Superman is more or less the hand of God: if he's a bit busy, well, you might want to understand that.

In other words, while Potts--and in this movie she does get a good deal to do, thankfully--may be right to have some issues with the admittedly immature Tony--she may also want to consider that he has responsibilities (literally saving the planet) that other people don't.

Fortunately, the movie doesn't get dragged down by this--but it's still in there more prevalent than it ought to be.

Despite this complaint (rant), Iron Man 3 is fun--and you should go see it if you saw the other ones and liked them. In a way it may obviate the need for a 4th (although, you know, shut up and take my money if they it)--it didn't add much to the story or the character. It's competent (even with a new director) and I think it still gets the character right and does it with style.

Let's do the politics!

The Politics of Iron Man 3 

The big spoiler is this: The Mandarin, played brilliantly by Ben Kingsley, is really a British, drug-addicted actor bloke who has been taken by the AIM guy (Guy Pearce) to act as a master terrorist (sending out video Pearce shoots). This is done to fool the world into thinking there's a bad guy when, really, AIM is trying to both create terror (having people using the new experimental treatment blow up as giant bombs) and then fight it (sell more stable versions of the treatment for use as super soldiers).

Interestingly: every Iron Man villain thus far has been a genius businessman. Iron Man 3 is no exception.

Interestingly: AIM, in the movie, is doing exactly what 9/11 Truthers think the American government is doing--propping up "fake terrorists" (or, less literally, 'creating them' the way the US 'created' Osama Bin Laden) and then using them as an excuse to conduct a 'War on Terror' which, among other things (such as taking our civil liberties away), makes someone a whole lot of money.

Interestingly: Iron Man 3, despite these plot constructs, doesn't really have a single political idea in its pretty little head.

Consider this: You are Iron Man. You are in Tennessee without the use of your armor or anything. You discover your girlfriend is being held captive in Miami by a madman. Do you:

1. Pick up the phone and call SHIELD and have Sam Jackson storm the compound himself and dispatch various guards by swearing alone?
2. Call your good friend Captain America to wreak havoc on the bad-guys until you can get your armor working to go help him? He can maybe bring Hawkeye and the Black Widow if you think the other super-soldiers might be too much for him to handle by himself?
3. Call your best buddy Don Cheadle who wears the Iron Patriot suit--and, by doing so, depending on the timing--realizing he's been compromised so you could properly warn the US government of that?
4. Call the cops?
5. Hire Blackwater?
6. Create McGuyver style assault gear, load it into a suitcase, and take a commercial jet to Miami, rent a car, and then storm the compound yourself? Without even regular body armor?

You know which one he picked ... even if you didn't see the movie.

Iron Man's plot construct is not political not just because it has a massively stupid plot-hole in it (if that were the standard everything would be shot) but because of the reason why it has the plot-hole. Iron Man 3's script needs to show that Stark is effective even without his armor--that He. Is. Iron. Man. (Ozzy Osbourne GROWL + METAL GUITAR RIFF). Indeed, it's the needs of the story that drive every other decision Iron Man 3 makes.

The reason that they use super-rich genius business men as antagonists is because you want the guy facing down Iron Man in an armored suit to also be "a super villain." You don't want him to be a flunky who is just wearing the suit someone else made (see what happens with the Iron Patriot battle: that guy doesn't last too long, does he?). So the foe has to have more or less invented the outfit too--not just be wearing it. That takes brains and money: TAH-DAH!*

The Mandarin reveal is in there because (a) the original character's 'orientalism' may have given some people pause and (b) the reveal (that he's a soccer-loving, hard-drinking Brit) is shockingly hilarious. The movie doesn't need two separate villains and it doesn't need three "climactic battle sequences" (and, arguably, if you count Stark's assault on the compound, it does in fact have three climactic battles. If you concede that then it definitely does not need four). 

The camera sells you The Mandarin and then pulls the rug out from under you and you laugh. It isn't commentary on arms-deals to Osama.

If I had to guess Stark's politics, I'd say ragingly Libertarian**--which would give him a rightful distrust of the power-elite in Washington (or, whoever those guys on the TV screens were in The Avengers who could order a nuclear strike on New York without having the President on the line)--but we never even see him wearing a Ron Paul T-shirt. 

So no, despite some construction that looks political, Iron Man 3 is pure summer-blockbuster.

Conclusion: No political message.

---

* Note that Tony Stark is also a super-rich genius businessman and he's the hero. The franchise sure isn't anti-capitalist even if it is, modestly, anti-arms-merchant.

** Doubly so after he stopped his arms-deals and stopped being the military industrial complex ...

A Look At 9/11 Trutherism (James Tracey Part 3)

A few days ago The Omnivore interviewed Professor James Tracey who writes the Memory Hole blog that details the government conspiracies behind 9/11, Sandy Hook, and the Boston Bombings (among other things). We then took on his 12 questions he meant to pose to news outlets skeptical of his positions. I want to end this with a look at the way that discussions are constructed around 9/11 Trutherism (the same construction and pattern applies to Sandy Hook and Boston Trutherism as well).

What Do I Mean By "Patterns"?
What you see below is the hour-and-19 minutes video Loose Change. It's a lengthy, reasonably well made documentary which posits that the 9/11 official story simply cannot be true. The truth, it suggests, is that something else must have happened: that something is supposedly the US Government using missiles, controlled demolitions, and remote-controlled planes to orchestrate 9/11 in order to bring about fundamental change in America.


The argument is structured as follows:

Connect The Dots
We get a view of documents which are designed to point the viewer in a basic direction. These are things like:

• Operation Northwoods documents: plans by the CIA to use false-flag terrorism to justify intervention in Cuba. This was never realized.
• FEMA and CIA documents showing the towers in cross-hairs ... a prelude to an operational plan?
• Technology allowing remote-controlled jumbo jets.
• Put options on various airline stocks.
• San Francisco mayor Willie Brown getting a warning not to fly from Condoleeszza Rice.

We then move to video "questions" and contradictory eye-witness testimony:

• People don't agree on what exactly hit the pentagon.
• There isn't enough plane-damage (look at the hole! Look at the pieces in the yard!)
• The pieces of the plane we do see don't match the proposed kind.

When we get to the WTC we see stuff like:

• There's no way the fuel could burn hot enough.
• A lot of eye-witnesses described "an explosion" (or more) rather than just "fire."
• The buildings fell too fast--could it be controlled demolition?

And so on ...

If you are interested, here is a point-by-point "debunking" of Loose Change. If you take the time to watch the video, take the time to read the link.

The Structure Of The Argument: Sleight of Hand

The structure of Trutherism arguments goes as follows:

1. Make or insinuate an allegation of blame (of the US Government or portions of it did it).
2. Create doubt about the official story by showing inconsistencies in various pieces of evidence (especially video evidence or through discussion of science the viewer is inexpert in). 

The doubt creates a "blank space" which the speaker's proposition is then allowed to fill. The reason this pattern recurs is this: the approach that the Truther is forced to take is that of a defense*: the creation of reasonable doubt rather than that of a prosecutor where the speaker can actually use evidence to indict a perpetrator.

Why is this?

The most obvious reason is this is that the evidence necessary to meet the standard to indict the government simply does not exist. No one has ever found it. There are no whistle-blowers inside the conspiracy coming forward (despite the fact that the conspiracy must involve hundreds of civilians and military personnel at all levels of government**).

The secondary reason is that despite what the documentary sort of implies this is not investigative journalism. It's Internet journalism where various pictures, interviews, and other materials are taken from afar and then put together on the user's home computer. The filmmakers don't go and interview people--they don't go to the company that did "security drills" at the Twin Towers and grill workers or ex-employees.

They don't talk to relatives of people on flight 93 about 'fake phone calls' (the Loose Change theory is that maybe those calls were all made up using electronic voice synthesis and maybe those people disappeared some other way) from the airplane. They don't interview the structural engineers who weighed in on the tower-collapse--they just print other people's rebuttals.

It is pretty well done so it looks like investigative journalism--but it isn't. Truther discussion can get asymptotically close to evidence of wrong-doing but it can never actually reach it because it isn't designed to.

Here is a quote from an Ex-Truther blog that, I think, lays this out pretty well:

There are no facts in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just a lot of theories, which eventually break down to "hey, we're just asking questions" if someone questions the validity of such. No structural, civil, or any engineers agree with the truthers. Yet, most of my friends will try to explain the hard physics involved in structural collapses. None of these people are engineers, physicists, or even in a scientific field, for that matter. Someone's supposed to take their word over an expert's?

Of course there are experts or at least 'experts' on the side of Trutherism--but the vast weight of the expertise is on the other. The key is not "the experts" (which you and I are unqualified to judge anyway) but the dynamic. If the conspiracy was this big, this complex (planes, missiles, disappearing passengers, the CIA, Homeland Security, the FBI, FEMA, the White House, The Pentagon, Naval ships at sea, the press, etc.) it would leak like a sieve.

How To Approach Outrageous Claims
What you see below is Luke's Change: a dead-on parody of Loose Change which claims that the destruction of the Star Wars Death Star was an inside job perpetrated by Darth Vader. If you have time to watch one of the two videos, watch this one. It's only 7 minutes long.

There are two things you should consider when viewing this:

1. How convincing is it? The answer is: pretty. It makes charges for which there are no really good answers (why did Darth Vader get into his Tie Fighter and join the battle? Why did he order his wing-men to stand-down firing on Luke)?
2. In a case were we know the conspiracy to be false (we saw the movies) how would we argue this were that not the case?

The answer is by stepping back a little and asking "What must be true for this conspiracy theory to be correct." Rather than getting bogged down in the science or the photographic evidence--or listening to sincere-seeming eye-witness accounts--ask the big question: if [ X ] was perpetrated by the government, what kinds of planning and risk-assessment would have been necessary for it to go forwards? How sure would the perpetrators have to be that they would not be caught? What kinds of security would have to be in place to make sure no one talks down the line (for example: if everyone in Bush-Brother's company showed up dead in 2008 (a) that would raise questions and (b) the last guy to die would almost certainly talk--how would you even plan on containing that?)

These questions have even worse answers than the ones posed by Loose Change: at some point almost everyone but you has to be in on the conspiracy. By the time you are done thinking it through a disastrous war in Afghanistan and tons of stolen gold seem like a pretty poor reason for someone like Bush to play bumper-cars with the nation's economy and his own life (if he were caught he would certainly be put to death).

You have to assume that everyone in the top chain of command is utterly corrupt and that their self interest is never served by coming clean--for decades. How would you even assess that? How far would you trust Bin Laden with your deadly secrets? Considering that he didn't deny the video (nor did Al Queada)--but the video is presumed fake--what would you do if he or someone in AQ had come out against it? How would you hope to manage that? Is Bin Laden really that big a fan of the US? That easily bought?

Do you know?

Ultimately this massive constellation of things that would have to be true is much harder to believe than the idea that the official story is correct. On the other hand ...

Hey? Why Not?

---

* Who is Loose Change defending? Osama Bin Laden, of course.

** Think about that. Condoleezza Rice apparently warned the Mayor of San Francisco not to fly. So she must be in on the conspiracy and this guy (Willie Brown) rated a warning? Does that make sense? Rice knows the biggest false flag attack and most devastating attack on American soil is about to go down and she decides to warn that guy not to fly?

That's terrible operational security--and, in fact, it would be absurd--but then why is it included at all in the movie? This is because they don't have to build a reasonable case that the warning was related--they just have to give the viewer a moment of pause and hope you don't Fridge Logic it later.

Prof James Tracey's Questions On Conspiracy Theory: Answered!

Florida Atlantic Professor James Tracey is one of the more public faces of Sandy Hook and Boston Bombing skepticism (or, if you will, truther-ism) claiming that the attacks are the work of the American government for the purposes of getting rid of  our civil liberties. His blog, Memory Hole, is a collection of vague, often visually asked, questions to which he feels the answers can only be that the US government is lying to us.

One of his posts, however, In Search of the Last Liberal Intellectual,  poses somewhat more concrete questions he tried to ask various 'defenders' of the orthodox narrative (such as the High Times editor or one of the Snopes researchers). Snopes may not have been able to talk to Prof James Tracey but we, at The Omnivore have, shall we say, more time on our hands.

So let's do it.

1. Does The Term 'Truther' Hinder The Search For Truth?
Question: The main thrust of John Milton’s Areopagetica is that in a fair exchange an argument based on the truth will triumph over lies and deception. Do you think that the major media’s use of terms such as “truther” or “conspiracy theorist” to designate individuals or groups with ideas and theories that differ from government and/or corporate entities is a productive part of the journey toward truth and enlightenment Milton envisioned?

Short Answer: Is the term Truther making truthful, enlightened discussion harder? No: It does not meet the conditions for being counter-productive to the discussion.

Long Answer: There are a few legitimate reasons to reject a categorizing term:

1. It is an ethnic or racial slur (example: the n-word).
2. It is posed as a negative (examples: "anti-abortion" vs. "pro-life"). This is especially true when the issue in question is a political wedge issue as people reputedly dislike voting "against" things and would rather vote "for" them).
3. It has pre-existing negative connotations (example: describing Branch-Dravidians as 'a cult'). This may be a legitimate use if the negative connotations seem accurate and the term does facilitate clear communication (i.e. Branch Davidian was, in fact, a cult and describing them as simply a "religious group" may be less clear about facts which are not in question--newly minted non-traditional group, very unusual beliefs, single charismatic leader, highly insular, paranoid, etc.)

Disliking a term because "you don't like it" recalls the silliness Hacker vs. Cracker. Now, words do mean things and labels can be important. GOP strategist Frank Luntz has made his career testing words and phrases to see which ones "sell" the best and then instructing the GOP to use those.

Does 'Truther' meet the conditions for any of the above? The answer is no. It is neither ethnic nor racial. It is not phrased as a negative (nor does it impact ballot issues). It does not have any pre-existing etymology.

It is generally clear. If I type it into Google I will get, on my first hit, a solid set of definitions (both pro and con) which all agree on the salient points. 

The term Conspiracy Theorist is questionable under #3--however it does seem to be the case that it facilitates clear communication: a person hearing a Truther described as a Conspiracy Theorist will, in fact, get a very good idea of the dialog and belief structure that person holds.

What is the preferred term by the Truther constituency? I think 'Hoaxer' is out as it generally applies to the person perpetrating the hoax and 'Denier' is too strong (did 9/11 happen at all?). I suspect 'Skeptic' would be welcome--but 'skeptic' is generally held by people refuting extreme claims rather than embracing them: it would, in fact, mislead most listeners.


Edited to Add: If you consider 'Truther' to be negative today, that's fine--but if the term is negative it's because of its own reasons. The #3 point is when a category is used for something and links it to a whole lot of other, historical badness. If 'Truther' had been the term from the American Revolution for "Traitors who felt America should be crushed under British rule" or something and it was being brought back to apply to the 9/11 guys, okay--they'd have a point.

But, today, if you think 'Truther' is a negative word and you are one, you have only yourself to blame for it (unless you do, in fact, have some belief other than that 9/11 was an inside job ...)

2. How Much Responsibility Does the US Government Bear for 9/11?

Question: To what degree do you think citizens and the press should hold government officials accountable for momentous events such as the terror attacks of September 11, 2001?

Short Answer: A little, for missing some intelligence signals.

Long Answer: There is an entire, giant investigation on this (which satisfies exactly no conspiracy theorist anywhere). It shows some warning-signs may have been missed. If I reject the report then I can hold the government accountable for anything I want. I could also hold, for example, the Israelis or even space-aliens accountable.

Should the public hold the government accountable? I think the answer is "no"--the presence of a storm of questions (which is what the 9/11 Truth movement and other Truther-movements boil down to) is not the same as the kind of legal evidence necessary to establish culpability. 

3. What Is A Conspiracy Theory?

Question: What characterizes a conspiracy theory? How can we distinguish between a conspiracy theory and a valid assessment of a specific phenomenon, issue, or event?

Short Answer: A theory which suggests an unlikely conspiracy 'did it.'

Long Answer: Conspiracy Theories (to my take) tend to require these two characteristics:

1. They fly in the face of sound risk-to-benefit planning.
2. They require large (sometimes huge) numbers of people keep a deadly secret.

The idea that an administration (or force behind it) wishing to Invade Iraq would go about undertaking a massive operation (demolitions of buildings on a scale never done by mankind--involving moving tons of explosives into very secure installations with no one noticing it, coordinating planes flying into the building, hijacking the planes or otherwise disappearing the personnel, coordinating with Bin Laden who would stand to benefit greatly by selling out Bush, etc.) simply defies Risk-to-Benefit analysis.

If one wanted to invade Iraq, why not have Oliver North sell them WMD undercover and then, once they buy them, invade them for it? No one would ever figure that out.

4. Who Was Behind 9/11?

Question: US political leaders uniformly maintain that Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network were the sole agents behind the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 Commission’s report attributed this set of events to “a lack of imagination” in terms of government agencies’ preparation. In your view, what are the most compelling pieces of evidence to support this official explanation of the 9/11 events?

Short Answer: The most compelling piece of evidence is the video of Osama taking credit for it and the reaction of world intelligence agencies. The official investigation's report is also, to my mind, credible.

Long Answer: Prior to 9/11 I flew with a small knife on my key chain. It never occurred to me that such a device could be used to hijack an airplane. The use of a jet-liner as a terrorist weapon had been discussed before--but the context was usually blowing it up over a city (low) so as to damage the area below it--not to crash it into a large building ... which would take training.

9/11 was devastating out-of-the-box thinking. Even the idea that terror-cells (especially suicide groups) could operate for lengths of time in the US without just walking away was the conventional wisdom. Unfortunately 9/11 proved that wrong--it was a lack of imagination on the part of every security expert I was reading. I think that fits.

What evidence do I have? I have heard stories from relatives of people on the flight that the passengers took down--their phone calls--and so on. This seems to indicate that planes were hijacked by teams of people (as do radio tapes from the planes). Osama took credit for it on video. People saw planes strike the buildings--even the Pentagon--and so on.

But the fact remains: I have not seen most of the evidence--and neither have you. I also haven't investigated every crime committed in my home town--I haven't seen the evidence for anyone in jail in my city--but other people have--and I more or less trust them to do their jobs. I haven't been to Alaska--but I've seen evidence of it--and both I and Professor James Tracey seem to agree it exists.

5. Why No Love For Conspiracy Theorists?

Question: Historian Richard Hofstadter argues in his well-known essay, “The Paranoid Style of American Politics,” that regardless of how much evidence the conspiratorially-minded gather and present on a topic or phenomenon they are not worthy of a hearing as their views may endanger rational political discourse and consensus. Does such a position potentially jeopardize effective and honest journalistic practice?

Short Answer: A little. Does your email spam filter sometimes get it wrong? Yeah? Turn that thing off for a few weeks and call me.

Long Answer: Claims that are considered "outrageous" (i.e. "I was late to work because I was abducted by aliens") generally require more proof than those that are not ("I was late because I overslept."). When someone comes up with a humdinger of a proposal (9/11 was an inside job involving scores if not hundreds of people) it will be met with serious question unless there is serious evidence.

Serious evidence is not "pictures with questions I can't answer" when I am not a photographic analyst by trade. The Truther arguments are identical in practice to "I can prove the sun revolves around the earth because ... look at it!!" I'll admit, I've been outside: the sun looks like it's going around the earth ... the earth looks, well, pretty flat. It doesn't feel like it's rotating, does it? Can you disprove this:

Proposed Flat Earth Map

The answer is: you can't--not with personal experience. You may be able to prove the surface of the earth is somewhat curved (use a stick and a well a few miles apart--or watch the masts of a ship come in to port)--but get into a debate with a flat-earther and things get strange fast (I've looked into it). At that point ... do you conclude the earth must be flat because you can't explain exactly how it is that gravity "curves space." Or do you take the word of various physicists and astronomers who you don't know personally.

So the answer is that there are some claims ("I was abducted by aliens this morning, yo" or "the earth is flat, bro") which you can kind of safely ignore. Then there are gray areas ("Nixon is spying on Democrats, yo.") and you have to decide if "9/11 is an inside job" fits into those or not. 

How much evidence will you demand? Will unanswered questions do it? Or will it take something more substantial? When a proposal falls into that gray-zone it may be unfairly dismissed--but that's why investigative journalism exists.

6. Are Conspiracy Theorists Dangerous?

Question: In your estimation, is the tendency to entertain or proffer conspiracy theories a sign of a potential psychiatric condition? Along these lines, are at least some conspiracy theorists inherently dangerous?

Short Answer: No.

Long Answer: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Just holding a conspiracy theory is not evidence of a psychological issue or any evidence of the person being dangerous. I'd use the 'alcoholic test': is holding this theory causing you recurrent on-going problems in your life? If the answer is "yes" you might have a problem. Is it giving you thoughts of harming yourself or others? If "yes" then you might be a danger to such. This has nothing to do with the theory and everything to do with the person holding it.

7. But The CIA Was A Conspiracy Machine!

Question: In 1977 Carl Bernstein reported that through “Operation Mockingbird” and related activities many major news organizations were infiltrated by CIA operatives or consciously aided the CIA in intelligence gathering activities and “planting” stories in the press. CIA document 1035-960 suggests how the agency went about thwarting criticism of the Warren Commission’s examination of President Kennedy’s assassination by utilizing intelligence assets in news outlets to bolster the Warren Commission’s legitimacy and labeling critics “conspiracy theorists.” In your estimation, is the intelligence community’s penetration of the press an ongoing phenomenon? Is it more widespread today or has it subsided to any significant degree?

Short Answer: It has subsided, largely due to the end of the Cold War and things that came after.

Long Answer: First off, Operation Mockingbird was real--it was a CIA operation to influence the media (both the US's networks and other countries' media) to further both American and, allegedly, corporate interests. Whether it was ultimately successful or not is in debate but it did happen--it was covert--and it's allegedly over now ... or is it?

While we don't know for sure, there are a few things we could consider:

1. The world today is very different than that of the 1950's and the CIA of today is not facing an existential threat* in the form of the Soviet Union as it did when things like Operation Mockingbird or MKUltra were in effect. Today's CIA has a different mission--on the books at least. The budget for clandestine operations was greatly reduced in the 70's and has been reduced even more since.
2.  The CIA's capacity for HUMINT (Human Intelligence) has declined in favor of SIGINT (Signal Intelligence--electronic data gathering . Whatever the reasons for this, it's generally considered that our on-the-ground intelligence isn't what it used to be. This kind of decline would also probably reduce our capacity for things like Mockingbird.

Secondly, today's "press" (and Tracey uses the term 'press'--but he must really mean media) is a very different animal than that of the 1950's. It is vastly more diverse, often ideologically polarized, and no longer looked upon with the reverence that Walter Cronkite at 11 PM used to be.

It is cut-throat and downsizing: perfect fodder for a legion of whistleblowers to erupt from (if someone who knew about CIA payola got fired what might they do when laid off)? In short, the return on investment would be going way, way down and the investment itself would be getting more expensive every day.

So, no, to answer the question: I think the CIA has dropped that kind of operation in preference of using drones overseas to spy on people and listening to cell phones with the help of the NSA. I don't think trained agents are playing cub-reporter for the New York Times.

I have heard another theory: I don't subscribe to it--but it is interesting. The theory is (take a guess) ...

Did you guess Mormons? No? Gee.

Yes, there's a theory as to why the CIA "cleaned up its act" (and became less effective) and that theory is Mormons. Mormons are over-represented and allegedly highly valued in the CIA and FBI because they are hard to corrupt. Some people think this over-representation of stuffy non-coffee drinking Mormons has led to a decline in the dirty tricks that made the CIA so effective.

Whether or not any of this is true, I know one thing: it is funny.

8. The Declaration of Independence Was A Conspiratorial Document!
Question: Political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith cites The Declaration of Independence as a conspiratorial document and asserts that the ideology of America’s founders was in many ways motivated by paranoia toward British rule. In fact, the notion of conspiracy has been a consistent theme in American politics. With this in mind, what is it about modern forms of governance that render such impulses and worldviews irrational, obsolete, and perhaps even dangerous?

Short Answer: I don't think anyone ever considered the Declaration of Independence a conspiracy document in the say way that the modern term means it so either deHaven-Smith is being taken out of context or he's wrong.

Long Answer: Modern day Conspiracy Theory or "the notion of conspiracy" in the way 9/11-was-an-inside-job means it and various beliefs, even paranoid ones, about the British Crown are very, very different things. The first is a set of questions which are meant to be hard to answer and then lead the subject to the asker's conclusions. Questions about whether or not revolution was necessary are very different.

The people who wrote the DoI were running America. The people posting Loose Change to YouTube aren't running anything. I don't think public understanding of the difference has changed--I think the comparison Prof Tracey is making is faulty.

Conclusion: Category error.

9. Did McVeigh Blow Up The Federal Building In Oklahoma?
Question: The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City brought into public consciousness the notion of “homegrown terrorism.” At the same time the event provided the pretext for laws compromising Americans’ civil liberties and paved the way for the PATRIOT Act that was enacted in the wake of 9/11. Is it reasonable for the public to conclude that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were the sole or principal agents in the bombing? Have you examined the Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee’s 2001 report on the incident? If so, would you consider its findings to be sound and cause for a new judicial interrogation of the event?

Short Answer: I have not examined the 2001 report--but everything I have heard suggests the official story is correct.

Long Answer: "Have you read ..." is one of the things that makes Conspiracy Theory discussions difficult. One party has 'done the research' and the other party (the skeptic) inevitably hasn't.

Unless they have--like I have with scanners and birth certificates and layers--in which case the discussion falls apart and you just move on.

The question is leading: did the laws "compromising Americans' civil liberties' get the way paved for them? Well, "yes" in some sense--but the question is phrased in such a way that it is easy to assume it is taking it as a given that this is intentional. It isn't.

The NSA used to be able to spy on America--today it isn't. There were several fairly racist initiatives the FBI wanted to launch--they weren't allowed to. Originally we had slavery--not so anymore. Today women can vote: Didn't used to be the case.

The idea that there is a never-ending march against civil liberties is created by looking only at one dimension of events (those that restrict civil liberties) and not by looking at the whole (which is much messier and subject to a lot more interpretation). The assault rifle ban did, in fact, expire without any discussion of Oklahoma.

I'll need more than a leading question and a suggestion to read a report (I read the 9/11 report ... and no one seems happy with that) to do the research.

10. What About Sandy Hook!? No One Investigated That!
Question: The official theory of what transpired at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012 involves 20-year-old Adam Lanza going on a murderous rampage that resulted in the deaths of 20 children and 7 adults. Major media outlets appear to have unquestioningly gone forward with this scenario. In your estimation, have law enforcement and medical authorities produced evidence sufficient to support this theory of events?

Short Answer: The place was slammed with reporters, FBI, and so on. I'd say there's been a ton of investigation. I see no reason to question the official story.

Long Answer: We still don't have Adam Lanza's death certificate--isn't that weird? Yes--it is. I suppose so. Therefore: I conclude they cut him open and he was determined to be an alien. So they had to cover that up.

Not really--but I'm also not an expert on how death certificates get issued--how long autopsies take--and what events other than a massive and poorly managed conspiracy might be responsible.

The salient point here, however, is not that I have or have not seen "sufficient evidence" to convince me of anything but rather that I have not seen "any evidence at all." I have seen pictures of the school. I have seen talking heads discuss things. I've heard official reports.

This is also the kind of evidence that I have seen for:

1. The suggestion that nuclear reactors blew up at Fukishima. 
2. That WWII happened at all (much less the Holocaust).
3. That the space shuttle actually goes into space (instead of, say, Ohio).
4. That Alaska exists--and that a person named Sarah Palin comes from it.

Only #4 is actually hard to believe (consider: could we really have bought the nation's largest state for next to nothing!? And would they really elect Palin governor? Sounds fishy--someone should investigate that shit--and I don't mean the billion people who investigated it during 2008--I mean an independent commission). 

Okay, I'm being silly there--but the fact remains that I am not on a jury--I am not an investigator--I am not being "shown" evidence--I'm watching a zillion different people give me the news. I'm also watching a lot of them go "Crap: I got that wrong." That happens. It doesn't take a conspiracy.

11. Why's Alex Jones Less Credible Than Bill O'Reilly!?

Question: There are a variety of public figures and websites that deem themselves as “alternative” sources of political news and analysis, such as Alex Jones and Infowars.com, and Dr. Webster Tarpley of Tarpley.net. Why do you believe such individuals are frequently held up as promoters of conspiracy theories? In your view, what is it that makes these commentators and sources of analysis less reliable than, say, CNN’s Piers Morgan, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, or the editorial and op-ed pages of a regional or national newspaper?

Short Answer: Because Jones' world makes no sense and O'Reilly isn't proposing a "new world" but rather commentary on this one.

Long Answer: Here's a partial list of things Alex Jones got wrong:

• Worldwide shortage of rare earth metals – Didn’t happen
• Food supply disruptions hit western nations – Didn’t happen
• Deadly superbug mutation goes wild – Didn’t happen
• New evidence links vaccines and neurological disorders– The opposite happened
• U.S. power grid suffers catastrophic failure – Didn’t happen
• Satellite breakdown – Didn’t happen
• GM crop contamination leads to crisis – Didn’t happen
• Honeybee population collapse spreads to other species– Didn’t happen
• Weather patterns become increasingly radicalized – Debatable
• Nuclear power sees global resurgence – The Fukushima incident discredited this
• Nuclear weapons unleashed in the Middle East – Didn’t happen

The list goes on-and-on. But the real issue isn't with Jones as prediction is dicey at best--everyone who tries gets a lot of stuff wrong. The problem is that Jones isn't anything like BOR or Rachel Maddow: he's an entirely different product.

Maddow isn't telling you that everyone is lying to you--she, like everyone else there--is giving her opinion on things that presumably happened. Jones is telling you those things didn't happen. BOR might tell you why they happened or what they mean. Jones is telling you that if something did happen it was done by Spec-Ops wet-work guys and that what you heard was all fake anyway. Jones is predicting various disasters, Maddow is predicting that Hillary is gonna run in 2016.

Let's put this another way: if you could bet on Jones' predictions with your own money--real money--would you? The answer of course is (a) no. And (b) If you did, you'd argue forever with whoever you bet with that whatever it was really happened and they covered it up. Satellite breakdown? Those things fell from the sky like rain--remember the Leonid Meteor Shower? That was Van-Star-One coming down!

If you'd hesitate to bet money on GM crop contamination leading to crisis or a catastrophic failure of the US power grid--or new evidence for vaccines and autism? Well, there's a reason for that.

If I were to "follow the money" from the Boston Bombing it would lead to Alex Jones--not Homeland Security.

12. Does Money Influence News And Public Opinion?
Question: Philanthropic foundations contribute large sums to a wide array of non-governmental organizations and media outlets in the United States. What role, if any, do you believe such entities play in shaping public discourse and opinion around controversial issues and events?

Short Answer: Some but not much.

Long Answer: Let's back up--does money influence elections? Yes? Oh Hells yes. Money buys elections ... unless you are Sheldon Adelson in which case it doesn't buy you Gingrich and then it doesn't buy you Romney. The influence of money on the media can't be contested--but most of that is in the form of advertisers paying for television they think will reach women (Lifetime) or 20 year old men (Spike) or 30-somethings (everyone) so they can sell their products.

After that, though, the influence of money becomes questionable. Scientology (rich) has been trying to alter public opinion (bad) for a long time. Recently they took out a big ad in the Atlantic. The Atlantic got all kinds of shit for it and promised they'd never do it again.

Things don't always go so well for big money.

The real question here, though, is this: what NGO is paying money for Sandy Hook--for either a programmed assassin group (Lanza + Shooters 2 and 3) or a big-time hoax ... or both? Procter and Gamble? Bushmaster Arms (doesn't seem likely)? Taser? Hey--if guns are illegal ...

That's the question with no answer: we can't show much (any?) evidence of corporate sponsors for mass killings--we can't name corporations--we don't have faces to put to this or even goals or agendas (other than Agenda 21) as an end-game. I do know that there is discourse around abortion, for example--or immigration (tech companies want more visas!) and I know how that works--but I don't see any conspiracy there ... just some spin.

So I'll answer: I have no idea of the role that any of this money plays in shaping discourse but I suspect that if they're paying a lot? They're not getting their money's worth.

Ask Karl Rove.

Next Post: Conclusions on all this!

---

* This is when your English Teacher threatens to make you read The Stranger.