Logic To The Rescue

What do you do when something BIG happens in our society (a tragedy like 9/11 or JFK, etc) and you need to formulate an opinion about it? And what if the data you receive from the media and other sources is conflictive, complicated and confusing? Your opinion matters. You're an important part of this society. You want to be on the "right" side of the argument. But how do you really know WHAT TO THINK?

In your individual search for a point of view which you can embrace, you can follow many different paths.

• The simplest one is to simply listen to someone else, perhaps someone in a position of authority or someone you can trust - and support his or her view.

• Another way is to open your ears to a number of opposing views and then try to come up with "your own average opinion". That's a position that neither agrees nor disagrees with any specific authority, but it doesn't forcefully contradict them either. A kind of intellectual agnosticism.

• Finally, you can also choose to arm yourself with as much information as is possible, and thus arrive at a point of view which your logic dictates.

In each of these scenarios you continue to use other people's opinions to reinforce your pre-conceived notions. At some point you might even arrive at a feeling of CERTAINTY. You will then tend to reject (almost as a knee-jerk reaction) any opinions which disagree with yours. It will take a major jolt to make you rethink your position once your mind is made up. We're ALL like that. (Note that each of these three ways applies to people on ALL sides of any argument.)

So how DO you arrive at an opinion about something?

We all have a "sense of logic." Given a sufficient data and scenarios we can understand, we're all perfectly able to draw the correct (i.e. "logical") conclusions.

At this point, rather than attempting a half-assed review of Classical Logic or even Propositional Logic, I thought it might be an interesting idea to approach any one of the hugely divisive issues (like 9/11 or JFK or any other tragedy like that) using a simplified and only vaguely related (and fully made-up) example. (However, when you have a moment, I'd strongly advocate using logical "Truth Tables!")

The Power of Analogy

A good analogy needs not be factual or "the same" as the point in question. In fact it's best if it's not. But it needs to contain the same general principles. Most importantly, it neeeds to be vastly simplified in order to adequately assist a person in finding a method for drawing the correct conclusions.

With this in mind, let me sketch out a ficticious situation, and then ask a few questions which, all going well, just might prove helpful in helping you arrive at conclusions which will transcend this meager example. Those conclusions (or rather the METHOD of arriving at them) might then be applied to any real-world situation.

Here goes.

The situation:
You are the town sheriff and you see the local merchant's car crash into a building. It's going at a leisurely 20 mph, probably didn't notice that building in his way - and bang... the car explodes! Whoa...!

The investigation:
Given these facts, you're now conducting an investigation. You have access to lots of experts. Once their verdicts are delivered you have the following sets of conclusions:

• Expert 1 - Insists that it's only to be expected that when a car strikes a brick wall, it's going to explode. It may have looked strange - but it isn't really. Case solved. Collect insurance.

• Expert 2 - Insists that the car couldn't explode with just a 20mph impact (he also notes that the fuel tank is in the back, far from the impact zone). He proves his case using past accidents of similar kind. He even provides re-enactments and new experiments to prove that such an explosion couldn't happen without other contributing factors. He proposes that a bomb must have been in that car, but is reluctant to speculate as to who might have placed it there and how. While he is shocked to find out that the car has by now been removed from the scene of the accident and has already been scrapped by a junkyard, he doesn't accuse anyone of destruction of evidence - but he insists that a new investigation must be conducted to establish all the facts.

• Expert 3 - Generally agrees with Expert 2, but has a forceful theory about "who" it might have been that planted the bomb in that car and why. He also supports a more thorough investigation but he's already sure of his facts and might as well do without one. He also accuses Expert 1 of being a friend of the merchant and fudging his findings for his benefit.

Initial conclusions:

• Expert 1 says: You saw it happen, right? It exploded, right? That's what happens when you ram a car into a wall. Study your physics. Case closed.

• Expert 2 objects to this over-simplification and says: I did see that it exploded but it couldn't explode like that under those circumstances. The laws of physics prevent it from happening like that.

• Expert 3 injects: I agree with Expert 2, and I also believe I know who did it, how, and why. And I think Expert 1 has an agenda!

Which conclusion would you offer to the people?

• If you agree with Expert 1, experts 2 and 3 will accuse you of a "cover up." People who respect Expert 1 will accept his version because (a) He is who he is, (b) Because it's the simplest explanation and relieves them of any further duty to strain their intelect - and waste time on this case.
  

• If you agree with Expert 2, Expert 1 will call you an idiot, and Expert 3 will insist you're not going far enough in your conclusions. People who respect Expert 2 will accept his version because (a) He is who he is (though to a lesser extent), (b) Because they have thought about the actual mechanism of the accident and their logical conclusions agree with his findings - but... (c) They will object to Expert 3's conclusions as too radical and un-proven.
  

• If you agree with Expert 3, Expert 1 will call you a "conspiracy theorist" and Expert 2 will be too afraid to commit to Expert 3's theory. People who respect Expert 3 will accept his version because (a) He is who he is (though to a lesser extent still), (b) Because they believe the findings of Expert 2, (c) Because their logic leads them to the same conclusions regarding the potential perpetrators, and... (d) Because they have long been suspicious of the implicated perpetrators. And this scenario fits their suspicions perfectly.
  

You gauge the reaction of your community by reading the town paper (which is owned by the merchant's brother-in-law)

• You find that the town paper emphatically agrees with Expert 1. The editorial states that Expert 2 is just looking for non-existent complications in a very simple case... And you discover that it states that Expert 3 obviously hates the community in which he lives and is in fact a traitor... and a dangerous conspiracy nut who should be locked up. You also read stories about people who believe in either Expert 2 or Expert 3 and how they too are either idiots or conspiracy theorists or agent provocateurs.
  

• You speak to folks on the street and are not surprised to find that the vast majority believe what the paper is endorsing. Or at least they SAY so.

• You discover there's a growing division between the exponents of the first view and those who believe the "alternative" views. The latter ones are beginning to be marginalized.

• You receive an angry phone call from the editor of the town paper expressing surprise that you're still undecided as to which expert to believe.

• Everyone is now waiting for YOU to weigh in on the issue. You're the sheriff after all.

You announce your conclusion.

• EITHER one of the experts COULD be right.
• In the simple situation described above... which conclusion do YOU announce to the people?
• And... why?
• And how do you think your decision - whatever it may be - will affect the people in each of the three groups?
• What do you think the town paper will print - about you and about the case - after you announce your decision?
• How will your public conclusion affect your standing as sheriff of this town?

And now that you've reached your conclusion... write a song about it!

Looking for the Cure

Whether it's cancer, HIV, or any other disease, the search is always on to find the cure. Most of us can attest to the undeniable strides achieved by modern medicine in the last 100 years or so. This large success rate easily convinces us that "all" of Western medicine is nothing short of miraculous. But, without taking anything away from its achievements, a critical look is also warranted, particularly when looking at some illnesses which are not only NOT conquered, but are in fact on the rise.

It's enough to notice that the incidence of cancer, for example, is at an all time high and the cure rates using chemo-therapy, surgery or radiation vary (depending on cases) from less than 1% to at best around 20% (when the cancer is spotted early).

When you assess this staggering statistic you'll quickly realize that something here doesn't quite seem right. After all, everything you hear and see in the media "implies" that we're at least 80% successful. Yep. This is for sure the impression you're meant to receive. But it isn't strictly speaking true. Given 100 patients, for instance, 80 may have surgeries which successfully remove "all" the cancer, while the remaning 20 are "inoperable." In that case, the statistic would indeed seem to be correct: 80% "cure" rate. But that's simply not correct because of the 80% "cured" patients as many as 90% later suffer remissions. So... were they cured? Or were their symptoms simply temporarily removed?

So, we can pretty quickly all agree that the battle against diseases such as cancer is still a losing one. Western medicine is plainly failing on this front, in spite of the fact that 100 billion dollars are spent on cancer medications each year alone. Considering research grants, therapies, hospitalizations and meds, the whole "cancer business" is worth well over $500bn per year!

Given this level of funding versus this dismally low level of "cure rates" one can't help but ask some questions. Why is the success rate so low for cancer? Are some of the research funds going to alternative approaches?

And with just those two simple questions we've opened up a can of worms of staggering proportions. There are hundreds if not thousands of "alternative cures" some of which are without a doubt delusional, but some among them are surprisingly and exceptionally effective. But they're all painted with the same brush. And none receive any grants. Worse, the best ones among them are outlawed!

If you tend to take things at their face value, upon hearing something like "this such-and-such quack technique is illegal in the United States" you will automatically tend to believe it and not research it any further. Because the "media" or the "government" says so. You will settle for the official medicine's non-solution to cancer treatment and you'll casually discard what may potentially be a life-saver. You may be right thing in some cases. But equally likely, you may be wrong in others. But how would you know? The government and the medical establishment do absolutely nothing to provide you with informed choice, and - in fact - they do a LOT to disinform you about the supposed negatives of these "unsanctioned" therapies.

I can almost hear you saying that I'm beginning to sound like a conspiracy nut. Hehe... Not at all. But I did do some research. Not just a few YouTube vids, but a pretty thorough 10-year-long research complete with interviews and books and personal interactions with both sides of the argument. What I discovered is mind-numbingly outrageous. And the weirdest thing of all is that these days anyone can discover the same thing with just a little scouring of the web. And yet people still go on supporting the official position - to the exclusion of seriously looking at alternatives.

With this little introduction, I'd like to direct you to a few interesting resources on the web.

Videos

• World Without Cancer, by G. Edward Griffin - (6 parts) - this is one of the most interesting and thorough alternative researches done on this subject. By the way, G.E.Griffin was one of the advisors to Ron Paul (US Presidential Candidate) and is considered one of the world's leading authorities on the Federal Reserve (and also on alternative cancer treatments) - this video is based on his book.
  
  
  
  
  

• Science and Politics of Cancer, by G. Edward Griffin - (9 parts) - this covers the same ground, but with more political angles. Most interesting. And Griffin actually conducts a lecture about it, covering parts of the movie, above. Really fascinating.

• How To Cure Cancer & HIV, by Dr Bob Beck - (13 parts) - this guy is shown in this video after he suffered a stroke, hence he talks a bit funny - but he was a very famous physicist in the States, and after his stroke he discovered this interesting method. I was at first a little doubtful about him, but then I asked G.E.Griffin himself - his secretary replied that her husband was Dr Beck's long-time friend and bodyguard and that the method described here is absolutely revolutionary.

Sites

• http://www.worldwithoutcancer.com/ (this was the original site)

• http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/ (this is where it got moved)

Note that the reviews and reports on this are quite contradictory, with the mainstream (majority) medicine opinions ranging from "total quackery" to "possibly effective" - a stance which is well explained in Griffin's videos.

When researching this on various alternative sites, the B17/Laetrile therapy invariably has good reports, although in some cases people think other therapies may be even better. No matter. The point really is that the "official" medicine doesn't really offer a solution (other than treating symptoms rather than root causes), so (particularly when all else fails) one of those alternatives seems like just as good a method as any. In fact, basing on the hundreds of cases studies (see also the book "Laetrile Case Studies" by G.E. Griffin) the method he recommends does indeed seem to be the best.

Finally, a little story from my own backyard.

I first started researching this for the wife of a close friend (Deep Purple's manager John Coletta, r.i.p.). She was totally sold on it and ordered a whole "kit". Her doctor refused to give it to her. John refused to have "her blood on his hands". A local cancer relief charity refused to deal with this quackery too. She died a month later (she had bone marrow cancer and it was very advanced - and she was totally destroyed by chemo). But her spirit went through the roof when she spoke to these people from the WWC organization. She believed them that it works and that was already half the cure. But... it wasn't to be.

I then recommended this to an uncle of mine. The story repeated itself almost point-for-point. He ordered his set of B17 supplements and other things, and nobody would administer it to him (B17 needs to be injected when it's used to treat very advanced cases of cancer). He also died shortly afterwards.

A couple of years ago I recommended it to another close friend (Graham, here on Fame Games), who said he had a friend in the UK suffering from terminal cancer. THIS time, Graham not only convinced his friend to take it, but he even got a nurse to administer it for him. And... very quickly a remission started happening. TRUE! Until, that is, the friend went back for a scan and the doctor couldn't believe his eyes. The guy then told the doctor what he was taking. To this, the doctor almost threw him out and said that he had to stop immediately or else he would die, and that this remission was a "fluke" and NOT related to B17. And... Graham's friend did stop. Entirely. He was dead a few short months later after some more chemo.

I have spoken to my cousins and uncles (half my family are doctors!) about this and ALL of them have the same attitude towards this: it's quackery. But NONE of them have ever researched it.

What do you think...?

And then write a song about it!

Don't Cry Rape - Or Else...

You'd think that when a domestic abuse victim in our society goes out and tells everyone her story (sadly, it is typically a woman), everyone who learns about this would be outraged, rally around her, offer support, roundly criticize and try to bring to justice the wrong-doer, and generally try to uncover what has happened.

What complicates things, of course, is that sometimes a person may wrongly accuse another, however, so uncritically embracing just the one side of the story without an effort to uncover the whole picture isn't a good policy either. But doesn't the apparently injured person deserve the benefit of the doubt? Because let's face it: for every thousand cases of reported abuse, perhaps only one is fake or trumped up. The rest are gruesomely real. People generally do not lie about things like that!

So when Mackenzie Phillips recently came out with her book about her father's repeated molestation of her, most people had no doubts that she was actually telling the truth. As horrible as it is (and we're talking about the near-iconic artist John Phillips of Mamas & The Papas), she simply "has to" be telling the truth. But to my surprise, I found that there are lots of people who not only doubt her account, but also attack her viciously, call her names and accuse her of lying and trying to profit from her story... Or at the very least she must have "asked for it!" Such blind accusations and lashing out almost certainly have no basis in anything other than those people's blind faith in their beloved John Phillips. Or perhaps a blanket disbelief in such a horrendous story? In other words, blind prejudice.

Rather than trying to unravel the merits or demerits of this particular case, I will only observe a troubling analogy here with many other aspects of our lives. Whenever someone happens to challenge an "established truth," many people's knee-jerk reaction is to deny it. We've seen it from times immemorial - in science, in politics, in the judicial system. Everywhere.

Occasionally, the "debunkers" can become so worked up that all that comes out of their mouths aren't just denials - but most especially accusations, ad hominem attacks, demagogical tricks to silence the other side and win the argument at any cost, and sometimes even going as far as outright violence against the other person. And all because of something they SAID! Something so world-view-shattering that embracing the new view is not just difficult - it's impossible. And it needs to be defended to death.

And this doesn't even mean that the debunker can't be right in the final account (though all too often the louder they debunk, the shakier the foundations of their arguments!). But both sides deserve to be heard. Either side can ultimately have "the truth." But it's just the manner in which these disagreements are taken up which troubles me greatly.

Take just a handful of cases I've recently been spending some time on.

• The all-new hyperdimensional (or "tetrahedral") physics whose exponents include some of the brightest minds on the fringes of physics, but whose ideas are not just scorned by the mainstream physics establishment - they're actively fought, undermined and destroyed... in more ways than one! As a former woud-be physics major I find this new theory fascinating and hugely compelling.

• Or take Egyptology. In spite of alternative views backed by extremely solid evidence and multi-disciplinary scientific thinking, new ideas regarding the age and origins of the Egyptian civilization are not just arbitraily rejected by the mainstream egyptological establishment - they're actively fought and the proponents of the new interpretations of these archeological treasures are attacked, insulted, undermined and locked out!

• Or how about the JFK case? Sure, it's been many years... but there's no statute of limitations on murder! And it's clear to anyone with half a brain that the Warren Commission report was - if not an outright whitewash - then a very "censored" and incomplete piece of politically-inspired psuedo-investigation. It could not have been a lone gunman. It had to be a conspiracy, if only you dare look at the facts and analyze the self-contradictory official testimonies. But to this day, if you espouse this view, you'll be ostracized, criticized, insulted and demeaned by people who haven't spent even a few minutes studying the available evidence. They only regurgitate the "unassailable" official version, and that's good enough for them!

• Or what about 9/11? Doesn't that trouble you? Well, if you happen to have questions - mind you, not "conspiracy theories" but just "questions" - you will be attacked and cursed and called the worst possible names. Like the "Jersey Girls" (wives of people murdered in the WTC collapse) who were called "whores" on national television (huh?!)... simply because they want to have some answers! And they weren't hysterical or unreasonable, they presented a case backed by more (independent) scientists than the 9/11 Commission Report ever had! They didn't lash out with accusations, but only asked that someone clear up some contraditions. How dare they!
  

It takes a brave person to ask the simplest questions - if those questions go against the grain of an "established" opinion, or if they have the potential of unbalancing what the majority believe to be "unassailable" bastions of truth. Such questions typically end up in career terminations and in the most extreme cases in outright eliminations...

This works on all levels in our society. Blinkers are required by everyone. And we stand by and let it happen.

But consider this: individually, when we look at any of those cases, most of us actually tend to have an open mind! Perhaps we won't be swayed too quickly one way or the other, but most of us as individuals are open to new evidence. Except that something happens once we start SHARING new ideas... Something quite opposite. All of a sudden, "all" of us take sides a priori, without even looking at the evidence. All of a sudden, our opposition become "idiots," "criminals" or "looney conspiracy theorists." And this mass denial mentality is driven by the mainstream media. And, shamelessly, while they're doing that, they tell you that they stand for thorough and impartial reporting.

In fact, there is a whole science which deals with this.

Check out this phenomenal (though quite long) BBC documentary "The Century of the Self" and then write a song about this!

More On JFK...

I'm old enough to remember where I was when JFK was shot. I was 5 or 6 years old and was visiting with my grandma. I remember how shocked she was, crying "oh my God!." It's one of those early memories which will never leave me.

But for years I took no interest in the details of that case until some time in the mid-80's I remember a TV special where they put Lee Harvey Oswald "on trial." They placed his picture in the defendant's chair, they had a real jury, real prosecutors and defense attorneys and a real judge. It was the first time I understood that there actually WAS some measure of doubt about his guilt. If I remember correctly, the trial took something like 3 days of daily multi-hour installments, complete with witnesses being called - the works. And I also remember how we all watched this and to our complete surprise we concluded, basing on the evidence presented, that Oswald would have to be found not guilty! In fact, I remember our discussions (and that was "many" people including family and friends and people you'd speak to on the streets, etc), and we all wondered if that trial would have an "official" impact and would history books have to be re-written. Oswald was clearly NOT guilty, we all thought! (I just found it online...! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvisjH1v304&feature=PlayList&p=1993B641DFC1CB06&index=0&playnext=1)

Imagine my (and almost everybody else's) infinite surprise when the jury returned the "guilty as charged" verdict. Did they listen to different evidence than what the TV audiences were shown? What? How was that possible? Didn't they see OBVIOUS evidence of conspiracy (i.e. more than 1 person)?

Since then, on and off, I took lively interest in understanding the circumstances of that tragic event, fancying myself something of an armchair detective, but battling conflicting feelings about this case. On the one hand the romantic in me "wanted" for Oswald to be proven innocent but on the other hand I found it very hard at that time to believe that all these extremely clever people who had all the evidence and studied everything in great detail would somehow get it wrong. (It NEVER occured to my naive mind that they might WANT to get it wrong...). I happen to be a very logical person. Since I studied physics at a university for a while (I dropped out eventually only to grace another in a series of universities with my presence, but that's another looong story, hehe), I had to have solid mathematical grounding and Logic was a separate subject taught to us - complete with laws, formulas and all that. This kind of formal approach to logic suited my personality really well. And when I'd let my mind dwell on a case like that of JFK, I could put my intuition as well as my more formal training to the test.

Try as I might, however, my faith in the official story was shaken. In fact, I remember almost desperately looking for data and reasons why I the official account WAS correct after all. It wasn't easy then, because those were the days before Internet, but I did do quite a lot of reading. At one point I gave up. I decided that I just couldn't find enough data which would convince me one way or the other and I agreed with the official story. In spite of contradictory evidence, I told myself that they "had to be right."

Recently, my interest in this case was re-ignited while doing some other unrelated research on the web. I stumbled on a video of an official account of that story and it was right next to an "alternative" version. I watched both and my old suspicions about the case were reignited with a vengeance. I've spent a number of weeks (I only have an hour or so per day, late at night to devote to stuff like that) studying all the available evidence and... I HAD TO agree with my original conclusions from way back in the 80's. But with a twist. Not only did they NOT get the right man, but more than likely they actively covered up any evidence to the contrary!

See what you think. Check out this very long video (9 parts, each with five 10-minute sub-parts), "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Among all the hundreds of documentaries on this subject this one struck me as one of the very best and most balanced. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4QkKkXYtr4)




When you add to this the 2007 deathbed confession of E. Howard Hunt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlpL7qZxPhA) which, incidentally, barely even made the news (while Brtiney Spears and other truly stupid news did!), things start looking ever more suspicious no matter how you slice this.

Now that I closed the lid on my JFK research I must confess to feeling really angry. I've lived a bit now and my understanding of the world of politics and human nature has matured somewhat over the years. It's not an easy case regardless of which side of the argument you fall on. But the way it's being treated in the media is scandalous - even to this very day. Young people - ALL people - owe it to themselves and our future generations to solve this mystery with and OBJECTIVE study.

I think I'm gonna write a song about this... How about you?

Is the Truth Always In The Middle?

I often wonder how close-minded some people are. Once they arrive at an opinion about something, it seems unassailable from that point on. I used to think that this type of arrogance only applies to unintelligent and ignorant people and that anyone who's even slightly enlightened will always be able to at least consider an opposing view. I was wrong.

Whenever I find some free time, I like to read and browse through resources on the web, exploring my favorite subjects. Some of those subjects are quite controversial. For example JFK or 9/11 or even Ancient History or New Physics. Since I acknowledge to myself that the amount of knowledge I have so far amassed in each of those areas can still be increased, I find it difficult to take a decisive stand on any issue I'm still researching. I may lean one way or the other, but for me the argument stays open until I reach a critical mass of arguments. And even then I leave my brain open for a new counter-argument. I was sold on the Big Bang Theory for years. But now I'm not so sure, all the new developments in physics considered.

Still, to my eternal amazement, many people don't think that way at all. Sometimes, this makes me feel angry, other times stupid. I feel angry when I think "can't they see?!", and I feel stupid when the people with whom I disagree are ones I otherwise respect and admire. They must know something I don't! But I want to know what it is. And yet, when I probe and ask questions, I encounter an even bigger puzzle. In a huge number of cases, those otherwise hugely intelligent people DON'T have very much knowledge on the subject of a given controversial topic, but they DO have an abundance of self-confidence and "just knowing" that I'm not only wrong, but that they don't even need to hear any alternative points of view to be certain that they're right.

Having seen this time and again throughout my life, I can't help but think that there's more to this than just ignorance or arrogance on their part. It's got to be some sort of a defense mechanism...

Many people in my family are medical doctors. My first cousin is an accomplished doctor and also a scholar. She's a professor at a large univeristy and when we grew up together as kids she was always very open and curious. I remember running into her many years ago after not seeing her for years, I started talking to her about some interesting things I was reading at the time regarding alternative cancer therapies. Even before I had a chance to tell her what specific type of therapy I found particularly interesting, she interrupted me with "that's bullshit!" I remember immediately thinking "what the hell did I say? Did I phrase my sentence in a way that made me sound like some wishy-washy ignoramus or what?" After replaying it in my head I concluded that my question was inoffensive and rather well-put. I simply asked "hey, did you hear about some of those very intriguing alternative cancer therapies...?" And that's when I was cut off with that BS quip. I remember trying to push the topic just a bit further. Even as she let me speak about the particular therapy I was interested in, I could sense that her whole being was constantly cutting me off, wishing that I'd just shut up. I wanted to know if she'd heard about vitamin B17 and the whole Laetrile therapy. By the time I finished explaining what specific topic was holding my attention, I heard her make another arbitrary pronouncement "It doesn't work, Paul. It's all just quackery." When I asked if she'd ever investigated it, she said she glanced at some literature about it and was quickly convinced that it was just rubbish. I then took out the big guns and started naming names. You gotta do this sometimes! I rattled off a whole list of medical doctors who endorsed this and I also cited G. Edward Griffin's extremely well-researched study of this subject ("The World Without Cancer"). She shrugged "You'll always find some people who think they know better. But they simply don't. It's nonsense. Take it from me!"



(See what you think.)

I've encountered this attitude many times since, among family and friends as well as on the public forum. Some people, once their mind is made up, simply WILL NOT accept any alternative views, even to the point of rude and arrogant pronouncements.

Hey all you who believe that the Illuminati control the Earth - you don't need a tiny ruling elite to enforce an unwritten agenda. All you need are masses of people who are "right"!

Another example. Just the other day I ran into an old friend of mine who happens to be a popular talk-show host. As such he interviews hundreds of famous people every year and gets to learn about all sorts of things from their perspective. Very cool. So, when we met, one of the first things he did was talk about some of his most recent guests. A few of them, he said at one point, were telling him about the nuisance that is the so-called "911 Truthers" movement. Utter conspiracy nuts and idiots. I listened to his quick summary of the key points that the "Truthers always get wrong" and I was bemused. While I'm still not quite decided about many details of what transpired that sad day in September 2001, I've done lots of research and quite careful study of all the available evidence and I'm convinced of one thing: the government is covering up "a lot" (for whatever reasons), and many of the popular explanations (including the ones my friend cited) are simply unconvincing (not to say outright "wrong"), and occasionally fly in the face of easily testable physical laws. Don't get me wrong. I don't buy into the whole "Bush did it" thing, but it doesn't take a very high intelligence to understand why the "Truthers" want a new investigation. I support anyone who just wants to know! The original investigation was clearly, almost offensively incomplete. No wonder they want another one! So I said to my friend "well, you know some of the things these Truthers bring up do merit at least a glance..." To this my friend cut me off and said "Don't tell me you buy into that bullshit, Paul! These idiots don't know what the hell they're talking about! Let's not even talk about it!" So we didn't talk about it. But once again I had time to reflect on the workings of the human mind.

9/11 & American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out
(See if you think these people are idiots)

It's one thing to research something thoroughly and then have a strong opinion on it - even one that aggressively defends itself and rejects the views of others. But it's a whole different thing to have done little to no research, have little to no facts, and yet speak and act as if you're the alpha and omega on the subject! Am I wrong?

The thing that fascinates me is when those dogmatic opponents of new and "alternative" views, be it in science or politics, medicine - whatever, when they're (often) eventually proven wrong they fall into two distinct groups. There are those who insist that they "never" disagreed with the given point of view. Instead, they were just healthy sceptics, not close-minded dogmaticists. And then there are those who go to their graves convinced they were right all along. The first flight of the Wright Brothers wasn't covered by their local newspaper because the editor didn't believe in flight. Right up to his death, years later, his paper still didn't give the Wright Brothers any coverage simply because heavier-than-air flight was impossible after all.

Now write a song about that...!

Recommended JFK Viewing

Still on the subject of my last JFK post, I discovered a few really well made vids which I think most people will find quite fascinating regardless of which side of the debate they fall on.

Have a look at this short clip, "The President Who Told The Truth."

As Clear-cut As JFK

Are you among the 90% of Americans (and nearly 95% of non-Americans) who don't believe the US Government's lone gunman theory in the JFK murder case? Or perhaps you're among the 55% of Americans (nearly 70% worldwide) who belive that the US Government has actively covered up the evidence?

This either shows that the majority of the population is delusional, conspiratorial, illogical and just plain nuts... or it shows that there is a critical confidence crisis in the government (and the lingering JFK conspiracy is just the tip of the iceberg).

So what's gone wrong here? And if it's really such a majority who demand "justice", how come they're not just being ignored by the government-supported minority, but also attacked, insulted and (occasionally) punished?

Watch "JFK - Case For Conspiracy" here.

Perhaps we're looking at something other than a mere cover-up. Maybe it's a mind-set?

You might know this from your own experience. Sometimes, you just don't want to engage in a dialog with some people. If you're particularly knowledgeable on a certain subject and if you're being challenged by someone whose knowledge you don't respect, you might find yourself dismissing them even without hearing them out. It takes a patient and mature mind to engage in a dialog with someone whose opinions "offend" ours.

It might be your religion or your views on a particular science - or your views on the music market. Anything.

So, if this were the case in the above example, one might understand the official position a little better. Except for one minor problem. They are not "better" or "smarter" and there are no legal or ethical grounds for expecting that it should be so.

One can therefore easily agree that both views are "equal." Why then the a priori dismissal?

The Government's (and media's) position (dismissing, belittling and not listening to the alternative views of the majority) is clearly not justifiable, nor even logical - and probably also not even legal! And yet... if you publicly declare your disbelief in the official story, you WILL be declared a "conspiracy nut!" And the weirdest thing of all is that it's not just "them" who'll call you that. Many among the masses who otherwise (statistically) support you... will also start looking at you suspiciously!

It's a mind-set thing all right. Theirs: "we're right, because we are." Ours: slavish bowing to "power" and irrationally wanting to conform.

It's a case of the "expert" who can't stand dissent or even the slightest challenge to his authority. It's as if being wrong ain't human after all. We see this everywhere, at all times. Once you start representing the "established view" any challenge becomes intollerable to you. It's because you agreed that it is "established," solid and unassailable. And that's dogma. Dogma is by its very nature irrational, because it pretends to be a natural law, where it clearly isn't. Hence, the only way to defend it is by force and with blunt psuedo-intellectual tools. Thus, in totalitarian systems, the opposition is physically squashed while in "democratic" societies, the opposition is offended, laughed at, aggressively argued with and... blackballed.

• (In fact, a whole set of arguing techniques is being employed by virtually all who hold a dogmatic view of anything. It's a system of "arguing to win" no matter what. It's called "Eristic" and it's been disparaged by intellectuals and philosophers going as far back as Socrates or Plato. But no philosopher surpassed Arthur Schopenhauer in their analysis of Eristic. Have a look at this link and learn all you need to know about attacks ad hominem, exaggeration, homonymy and much much more. Fox News will make a whole lot more sense to you now!)

But is the Government (or for that matter ANY powers that be) to blame? Or are they simply acting as we would, if we were in their position?

Would we too become dogmatic and aggressively defensive if we believed in something so fervently? If we would, then blaming "them" for our own weaknesses will lead nowhere. But if we wouldn't - then the only way to fight them is by increasing our own and everyone else's awareness, until this new enlightened mind-set becomes so prevalent that the new generation of people who come to power will chose intellectual honesty over dogma.

Now write a song about that!