I appreciate the honesty, but that tells you a lot. Nearly a half-century later, you’ve heard enough conspiracies that you don’t know for sure what the truth is. After nearly a half-century. You can understand my skepticism that the 9-11 conspiracies will die out in 20 years. That tells you something about conspiracies and pop culture’s reluctance to promote critical thinking.

*Oh, no… not another “liberal media” claim. I am going to have to quote Chuck Klosterman if you really feel that the media has a bias.

Go for it. I know it. I lived it. It’s just a fact. No conspiracy…it’s just natural. Doesn’t speak to facts themselves, just how they’re presented. Most journalist are liberal-leaning. More liberal than the general population. I’ll destroy that guy, whoever he is.

*It’s not like they have a name or something; no one’s seen them, but we know the government has classified information regarding the event, and they are able to stay classified for 20 years before they have to be released publicly.

Oh.

*Everyone has an agenda. And what, specifically, would Carlin’s be?

Going out on a limb, it’s the standard 60s-70s ‘all traditions and institutions are bogus or stupid or both.’ Except, or course, the modern institutions that support and cultivate messages like his. Again, that’s from a former serious Carlin fan.

*There’s a difference, though: we have a ton of evidence in favor of evolution; we have very little to make any kind of a judgment of what happened on 9/11.

“Very little?” To many “ANY kind of judgment?” That’s just not correct.

*Hmm… I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I think it’s healthy to have a cynical view of one’s government.
Where we diverge is that you think such skepticism is bad because it fosters some extremism, while I don’t think it’s bad as it’s just part of the territory.

Not at all. We diverge where you limit your skepticism to a narrow list of targets. Government? Check. The most influential opinion-shapers? Not so good. You cling to the belief that embracing the conventional view of “diabolical Americans” is somehow a demonstration of healthy skepticism. I think it’s the opposite.

“No, if you believe the U.S. has been wrong since its founding (before actually, since its settlement), it goes beyond “the government.””
*I’m curious about this. Is this referencing the notion that the U.S. murdered, raped, and pillaged American Indians and the Mexicans in the South?

Indeed. That you believe this is more than historical fact, that it’s a defining characteristic of the U.S.

*Sure you can prove that: prove that those that did control the aircraft were not in any way sanctioned by the U.S. government.

I can only offer overwhelming evidence of that. Not proof. That’s the problem with conspiracies.

*No, I don’t think 7-to-1 (14%) is much more than 35%,

Well, 35% is between twice to three times as much as 14%. Kinda much more.

“ Don’t encourage kids to “question authority.” They’ll do that by nature. What they need to know is that they have a limited time in which they have to shut up and learn, so that they can ask the right questions later.”
*Agree with the first two, strongly disagree with this one. In this culture, I emphatically state that kids are taught to not question authority. Kids need to be taught to ask critical questions at an early age.

But kids question authority NATURALLY. From the minute they can conceive of authority, they question it. I don’t see the virtue in encouraging what comes as naturally as eating and pooping. (This is probably where our personal experiences feed our views…I’m raising kids, you seem at a different stage.) Pop culture, ads, movies, cartoons, TV… when it does feature “authority,” the storyline is to question it, expose its absurdity, and bask in the glow of the wee ones’ superior intellect. Pop music. Rock. Rap. It’s all “question authority to be cool.”

When I said “kids” I wasn’t really referring to high school kids. More preteen. But even the latter, it takes endless labor just to teach them the basics of writing and math and science, and civility, and maturity….I think they have time later for fighting the man. And by later I mean the rest of their lives. The time they have to just shut up and learn is relatively brief. But it will help them to question authority – intelligently – later.

*Americans are undereducated, politically apathetic, lazy, and easily distracted. I personally think it all stems from a lack of being taught to think critically.

Aside from the standard, exaggerated notion that this is an “American” trait…it’s amazing that we could both post the same observation, yet come at it from so different angles.

This isn’t just some pipe dream.

No matter what’s been released regarding JFK, the true believers will always be searching for the Holy Grail, and recruiting new believers.

I don’t know much about the JFK assassination, but I have to assume that 99% of the facts out there have been uncovered. That is enough to draw a conclusion from. I haven’t looked over all the facts, so I don’t know which is the proper conclusion. I’m assuming it’s that JFK was killed by a lone gunman (Oswald).

Since even the most liberal mainstream news outlets

Oh, no… not another “liberal media” claim. I am going to have to quote Chuck Klosterman if you really feel that the media has a bias.

you’ll have to inform me as to what secret documents are you referring to.

It’s not like they have a name or something; no one’s seen them, but we know the government has classified information regarding the event, and they are able to stay classified for 20 years before they have to be released publicly.

As much as I loved Carlin, I can’t pretend to know that he has no political agenda.

Everyone has an agenda. And what, specifically, would Carlin’s be? He has a very cynical view of people, why would he waste his time trying to enlighten people who he thinks are uneducated and ditzy?

We don’t “know” that the theory of evolution is the right one, it’s just that the evidence supports it.

For the record, evolution isn’t a “theory” in the everyday sense of the word. That humans evolve is a fact; it is called a “theory” in the scientific sense.

Most of us make the call, and say that evolution is correct. We’re not waiting for more information.

There’s a difference, though: we have a ton of evidence in favor of evolution; we have very little to make any kind of a judgment of what happened on 9/11.

Message after message, it’s the same: the American government is corrupt and sinister, and every patriot is a cynically misused fool. I am skeptical of such conventional wisdom.

Hmm… I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I think it’s healthy to have a cynical view of one’s government. Where we diverge is that you think such skepticism is bad because it fosters some extremism, while I don’t think it’s bad as it’s just part of the territory.

No, if you believe the U.S. has been wrong since its founding (before actually, since its settlement), it goes beyond “the government.”

I’m curious about this. Is this referencing the notion that the U.S. murdered, raped, and pillaged American Indians and the Mexicans in the South?

But…no one can “prove” that the government DIDN’T control the aircraft. That’s the kind of standard the conspiracy buffs rely on.

Sure you can prove that: prove that those that did control the aircraft were not in any way sanctioned by the U.S. government.

Did I misread it?

No, I don’t think 7-to-1 (14%) is much more than 35%, especially considering the party lines. That’s a lot of skeptical Republicans, in my view. That’s why I’m surprised.

Something to support your “It might be a lie” allegation.

I’d basically be quoting some of the stuff from the conspiracy theorists, which you wholly reject. To be fair, a lot of the facts that the prominent conspiracy theorists use are trash, but some that they use do have merit.

3. Don’t encourage kids to “question authority.” They’ll do that by nature. What they need to know is that they have a limited time in which they have to shut up and learn, so that they can ask the right questions later.

Agree with the first two, strongly disagree with this one.

In this culture, I emphatically state that kids are taught to not question authority. Kids need to be taught to ask critical questions at an early age. I was, and it was in spite of my education. Throughout my educational career, I routinely asked questions and challenged authority (including my high school administration).

I think it’s sad that kids are taught not to do this anymore. I can’t remember anyone at my school actively protesting the War in Iraq when it started (I didn’t either, but I had hardly anyone in overt agreement with me about it). Hardly any of my peers know what the Military Commissions Act of 2006 is, or what the FISA is. Yet all of them think shows like “Rock of Love” are great.

Americans are undereducated, politically apathetic, lazy, and easily distracted. I personally think it all stems from a lack of being taught to think critically.

That’s the problem with these things. There’s always some document just over the horizon that will tell us the truth. No matter what’s been released regarding JFK, the true believers will always be searching for the Holy Grail, and recruiting new believers. There is a line that some truth-seekers cross and become something else. Not saying you’re there. Just that there is a line.
Since even the most liberal mainstream news outlets aren’t taking a “We don’t know yet” stance, you’ll have to inform me as to what secret documents are you referring to.

“like I respect the right of conspiracy buffs to voice their opinion”
*You haven’t shown any respect for them to voice their opinion.

I respect *the right* for them to voice their opinion. I respect the right of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax to voice theirs, too. But I have to use my right to speak as a counter-weight to their destructive opinions. As much as I loved Carlin, I can’t pretend to know that he has no political agenda.

*But if we’re being “scored,” saying “we don’t know right now” wouldn’t be supporting creationism, since creationism states that we do know, and it was God.

But we don’t “know” that there is no god. It’s just that any “evidence” of a god has a more sensible explanation. We don’t “know” that the theory of evolution is the right one, it’s just that the evidence supports it. Most of us make the call, and say that evolution is correct. We’re not waiting for more information.

“The man HBO paid to make the “film of record” on Hurricane Katrina, Spike Lee? Says maybe Bush blew up the levees.”
*We have enough facts to show that this isn’t true. For instance, the federal government cut about $80 million in funding for the levees; they ignored warnings that the levees weren’t strong enough to withstand a Category V hurricane, stuff like that.

Obviously it’s not true. This was in response to “I can’t think of any recent conspiracy theories besides 9/11” as well as your notion that conspiracy views aren’t encouraged by powerful opinion-shapers like HBO.
*Anyone dumb enough to think a movie like The Bourne Identity is referencing reality deserves to be deluded. I think you’re being way too cynical about the intelligence of the general public, and this is coming from me.
We can debate the effect. I’m just noting that conspiracy views are not automatically the sign of an open mind. It’s pop culture. Message after message, it’s the same: the American government is corrupt and sinister, and every patriot is a cynically misused fool. I am skeptical of such conventional wisdom.
*Regardless of where people are getting their motives from, don’t you think it’s important to question this kind of stuff?
Sure. Just accept the answer, even if it challenges your worldview.
“The 9-11 conspiracies….the 9-11 attacks themselves, are generally defended by the notion that the U.S. is deeply flawed, morally.”
*The U.S. meaning the government? The Presidency?

No, if you believe the U.S. has been wrong since its founding (before actually, since its settlement), it goes beyond “the government.”

*You can’t be skeptical of skepticism. You can be skeptical of the agenda of the skeptics, however. I think that’s what you’re aiming for, and I agree with you 100%.

That’s it. That’s why I said I was skeptical of the “skeptics” not “skepticism.” I think we have both concluded that a certain amount of received wisdom has proven false.

“Make everyone else prove the American government DIDN’T do what you allege.”
*You can state it both ways. For instance…Positive: Al Qaeda terrorists flew planes into the twin towers. Negative: The U.S. government didn’t fly planes into the twin towers.

But…no one can “prove” that the government DIDN’T control the aircraft. That’s the kind of standard the conspiracy buffs rely on.
*That’s an interesting survey. Democrats aren’t that much more likely than Republicans, surprisingly.
Did I misread it? It says: Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure. Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks.
*What would you like?
Something to support your “It might be a lie” allegation.
“I believe you. I just hope you believe that other skeptical, rational thinkers can disagree.”
*Yeah, I’d much rather question everything than question nothing. Too many people in this country would prefer the boat not be rocked.
I agree, with three qualifiers which could be tagged “wuss out” or “mature” depending…1.Question, but accept the answer. 2. Also question the questioner. 3. Don’t encourage kids to “question authority.” They’ll do that by nature. What they need to know is that they have a limited time in which they have to shut up and learn, so that they can ask the right questions later.

I can’t tell you, that’s what I’ve been saying all along. None of us, except the people directly involved, know truly what happened. We won’t know for another 15 years.

like I respect the right of conspiracy buffs to voice their opinion

You haven’t shown any respect for them to voice their opinion.

So, you think Creationism is as likely as Evolution?

Me? No.

But if we’re being “scored,” saying “we don’t know right now” wouldn’t be supporting creationism, since creationism states that we do know, and it was God.

The man HBO paid to make the “film of record” on Hurricane Katrina, Spike Lee? Says maybe Bush blew up the levees.

We have enough facts to show that this isn’t true. For instance, the federal government cut about $80 million in funding for the levees; they ignored warnings that the levees weren’t strong enough to withstand a Category V hurricane, stuff like that.

In regard of our topic: shaping perception of the truth.

Anyone dumb enough to think a movie like The Bourne Identity is referencing reality deserves to be deluded. I think you’re being way too cynical about the intelligence of the general public, and this is coming from me.

I’m just suggesting that the conspiracy storyline does not run counter to conventional wisdom, it constantly peddled by the most powerful outlets of pop culture. I just don’t consider towing that line to be a sign a healthy skepticism.

Regardless of where people are getting their motives from, don’t you think it’s important to question this kind of stuff?

The 9-11 conspiracies….the 9-11 attacks themselves, are generally defended by the notion that the U.S. is deeply flawed, morally.

The U.S. meaning the government? The Presidency? Yes, of course. This has been proven time and time again that politicians say one thing and do another. That’s why it’s so important to ask questions.

Unless the “skeptics” are influential enough to get HBO specials. Then it’s perfectly logical.

You can’t be skeptical of skepticism. You can be skeptical of the agenda of the skeptics, however. I think that’s what you’re aiming for, and I agree with you 100%.

Make everyone else prove the American government DIDN’T do what you allege.

You can state it both ways. For instance…

Positive: Al Qaeda terrorists flew planes into the twin towers.
Negative: The U.S. government didn’t fly planes into the twin towers.

Positive: The U.S. government flew planes into the twin towers.
Negative: Al Qaeda terrorists didn’t fly planes into the twin towers.

Yeah, Bill. I spend all this time debating politics with a Phillies blogger just to make up numbers.

I wasn’t accusing you of anything, just curious about the statistic.

That’s an interesting survey. Democrats aren’t that much more likely than Republicans, surprisingly.

Now, you support your “fact.”

What would you like?

I believe you. I just hope you believe that other skeptical, rational thinkers can disagree.

Yeah, I’d much rather question everything than question nothing. Too many people in this country would prefer the boat not be rocked.

OK. I let you slide long enough. Tell us what is the disconnect between the truth and the story ‘sanctioned by Bush’ (as well 99% of American journalists…including the 99% who have been adversarial toward the Bush administration, such as CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, NPR, LA Times, NY Times, Boston Globe, Philadelphia Inquirer, etc.) Don’t they ‘sanction’ the non-conspiracy line too?

“But there is a direct link between tolerating conspiracies and endorsing them.”
*Let me give you an example. My cousin used to use heroin. Given my social libertarian beliefs, I supported his right to use heroin, but I was very upset that he was harming himself in that way. I chose to respect his right to use the drug. Does that mean that tolerating his drug use is also endorsing it? Not at all.

[Slaps hand to forehead]…The difference, I hope, is…you’re not pretending that the “Heroin harms you” vs “Heroin is great” debate is a real “debate.” You took a side. You ‘respect his right’ to be wrong, like I respect the right of conspiracy buffs to voice their opinion, but you don’t take the ‘Hey, it’s not good, or bad…keep an open mind’ approach. Because that kind of silence in the face of a harmful delusion is a tacit endorsement.

“It’s the same as Creationism vs Evolution. If you say “we don’t know enough to pick one over the other,” you’re supporting the Creationists.”
*No, you’re not. You’re supporting agnosticism.

So, you think Creationism is as likely as Evolution?

“I submit you receive just as many, if not more, messages to embrace conspiracies as you do the official government line.”
*I can’t think of any recent conspiracy theories besides 9/11.

I didn’t say “recent” regarding the overall messages. JFK, RFK, MLK…they all follow the 9-11 conspiracy script. But….I did just see a CNN promo for the Martin Luther King assassination, “The Real Story!” The man HBO paid to make the “film of record” on Hurricane Katrina, Spike Lee? Says maybe Bush blew up the levees. HBO. Blew. Them. Up. How about major studio movies about assassinations? Pick any you want. “Shooter” anyone? I could be wrong, but I think you’re just as likely to be accepting conventional wisdom as me.

“I submit that pop culture is, ultimately more influential than government.”
*In what regard?

In regard of our topic: shaping perception of the truth.

“I just observe that most recent movies involving terrorism, assassination, or similar threat to the Americans or their government will usually suggest or outright depict an inside job.”
*This is because of an agenda? It can’t be because that makes for a compelling plot, which leads to a better movie, which leads to more profit?

WHY it is doesn’t matter. I’m just suggesting that the conspiracy storyline does not run counter to conventional wisdom, it constantly peddled by the most powerful outlets of pop culture. I just don’t consider towing that line to be a sign a healthy skepticism.

“You have strongly held beliefs about America’s moral inferiority, which conspiracies just happen to support.”
*I think this is a good read.

Causation-correlation was a good read 20 years ago, when I read the grownup version, not the Wiki version. My statement was based solely on your statements. If I’m wrong, just say so. The 9-11 conspiracies….the 9-11 attacks themselves, are generally defended by the notion that the U.S. is deeply flawed, morally. The lines intersect and diverge at various points. Hard not to notice.

“A true skeptic is skeptical of the skeptics.”
*This is paradoxical.

Unless the “skeptics” are influential enough to get HBO specials. Then it’s perfectly logical.

““No evidence” to support what? That is WASN’T a conspiracy?”
*That’s intentionally misleading. Rephrase it to: Evidence that the Bush administration had nothing to do with 9/11.

It’s not misleading at all. You did it again. Make everyone else prove the American government DIDN’T do what you allege. Challenging others to prove a negative…the conspiracy buff’s main food source.

“the 35% of hardcore Democrats who say Bush knew about 9-11 in advance.”
*That Bush knew about 9/11 in advance isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s a fact. And did you make up that number? If not, where did you get that figure from?

Yeah, Bill. I spend all this time debating politics with a Phillies blogger just to make up numbers. 35% of Democrats: Link

Now, you support your “fact.”

*I am human and I do have my biases, but even if I liked the President a lot, I’d still support rational thinking and skepticism, even if it put him under the heat lamp, so tos peak.

I believe you. I just hope you believe that other skeptical, rational thinkers can disagree.

There is no direct link between 9/11 and the Bush-sanctioned story.

But there is a direct link between tolerating conspiracies and endorsing them.

*Shakes head*

Let me give you an example. My cousin used to use heroin. Given my social libertarian beliefs, I supported his right to use heroin, but I was very upset that he was harming himself in that way. I chose to respect his right to use the drug. Does that mean that tolerating his drug use is also endorsing it? Not at all. I don’t think drug use is a good thing. Personally, I stay away from almost all drugs, prescription, over-the-counter, and otherwise.

What you’re espousing is an indirect strawman argument.

It’s the same as Creationism vs Evolution. If you say “we don’t know enough to pick one over the other,” you’re supporting the Creationists.

No, you’re not. You’re supporting agnosticism.

I submit you receive just as many, if not more, messages to embrace conspiracies as you do the official government line.

I can’t think of any recent conspiracy theories besides 9/11.

I submit that pop culture is, ultimately more influential than government.

In what regard? It’s unfair anyway since our elected leaders rarely speak to us directly, while artists do speak to us in powerful indirect ways (movies, tv shows, and songs with agendas).

I just observe that most recent movies involving terrorism, assassination, or similar threat to the Americans or their government will usually suggest or outright depict an inside job.

This is because of an agenda? It can’t be because that makes for a compelling plot, which leads to a better movie, which leads to more profit?

You have strongly held beliefs about America’s moral inferiority, which conspiracies just happen to support.

I think this is a good read.

What claims? I don’t know how you define “very little,” but your suggestion that each side have an equal number of facts on their side is ridiculous.

It’s not a game where the side with the most facts wins. Neither side has enough facts to make a definitive claim of what happened on 9/11. And as I mentioned, neither side will until at least 2021.

A true skeptic is skeptical of the skeptics.

This is paradoxical.

“No evidence” to support what? That is WASN’T a conspiracy?

That’s intentionally misleading. Rephrase it to: Evidence that the Bush administration had nothing to do with 9/11.

the 35% of hardcore Democrats who say Bush knew about 9-11 in advance.

That Bush knew about 9/11 in advance isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s a fact. And did you make up that number? If not, where did you get that figure from?

you give inappropriate weight to the conspiracy claims because they support your worldview.

I am human and I do have my biases, but even if I liked the President a lot, I’d still support rational thinking and skepticism, even if it put him under the heat lamp, so tos peak.

I don’t support that notion, since there is no direct link between Iraq and al Qaeda. But there is a direct link between tolerating conspiracies and endorsing them. It’s the same as Creationism vs Evolution. If you say “we don’t know enough to pick one over the other,” you’re supporting the Creationists. That’s all they need to hear.

*Carlin, like me, did not espouse a conspiracy theory; he espoused questioning what you’re told.
I submit you receive just as many, if not more, messages to embrace conspiracies as you do the official government line. I submit that pop culture is, ultimately more influential than government.

*And frankly, your view of conspiracy theories and the entertainment industry is a bit of a conspiracy theory itself.

But I don’t allege anyone conspires to do anything. I just observe that most recent movies involving terrorism, assassination, or similar threat to the Americans or their government will usually suggest or outright depict an inside job. You can say I’m wrong, but I’m not alleging a conspiracy. It’s just Hollywood’s left-leaning PC roots.

“Anyone who reads the political posting on this blog knows there are quite a few things you feel quite certain about. 9-11 conspiracies just happen to support them.”
*I don’t see what you’re driving at. I share with Al Qaeda the point of view that the U.S. should not be in the Middle East and never should have been. Does that make me a terrorist?

No. I was referring to your claim that you’re just an agnostic ‘asserting uncertainty.’ You have strongly held beliefs about America’s moral inferiority, which conspiracies just happen to support.

*You have very little evidence to support your claims, just as the conspiracy theorists have very little to support theirs.

What claims? I don’t know how you define “very little,” but your suggestion that each side have an equal number of facts on their side is ridiculous.

*And it’s just a talking point to equate something I say to religious thinking. And wrong. I criticize God-belief because there is no evidence to support the existence of a deity; I criticize your 9/11 beliefs because there is no evidence to support it. My beliefs are aligned with skeptical thinking.

A true skeptic is skeptical of the skeptics. “No evidence” to support what? That is WASN’T a conspiracy? Are we asking to prove a negative again? That’s a favorite tactic for real buffs.

“Which happens to nicely match a plurality of liberal voters in surveys.”
*Why do you feel the need to ascribe me to groups? Generalization never works. I detest the simple gradients being cast upon ideologies.

For the love of Jebus, you’re an avowed socialist. A gradient would show that the sum of all your political posts in recent months puts you left of center, which happens to be the 35% of hardcore Democrats who say Bush knew about 9-11 in advance. I only use it to suggest that it’s possible you give inappropriate weight to the conspiracy claims because they support your worldview. Just as you suggest I too quickly reject the claims.

And I said that this line of thinking is akin to the Republican notion of “If you don’t support the War in Iraq, you support Al Qaeda.”

No, I’m saying we’ve had more than six years to look at One Day under a microscope, minute by minute, yet you claim we have less information to judge that than, what, a century’s worth of weather data?

As I mentioned, there are a plethora of documents containing critical information that won’t be declassified to the public until 2021. Those documents include conversations, phone calls, meetings, the whereabouts of specific people, etc. All of those are very important clues in arriving at a conclusion of what happened on 9/11.

The entertainment industry has enormously influential. Carlin is a part of it.

Carlin, like me, did not espouse a conspiracy theory; he espoused questioning what you’re told.

And frankly, your view of conspiracy theories and the entertainment industry is a bit of a conspiracy theory itself.

Anyone who reads the political posting on this blog knows there are quite a few things you feel quite certain about. 9-11 conspiracies just happen to support them.

I don’t see what you’re driving at. I share with Al Qaeda the point of view that the U.S. should not be in the Middle East and never should have been. Does that make me a terrorist?

Not a chance. Probably some Ron Paul believers, and even that it’s pretty narrow. But a broad, “FK, RFK, MLK, 9-11 combo package? That’s liberal red meat.

We will just have to disagree on this, as we do on others, I guess.

If you really believe this, it undermines any claim you have to supporting non-religious, facts-based thinking. It’s flat-out wrong.

Not true. You have very little evidence to support your claims, just as the conspiracy theorists have very little to support theirs.

And it’s just a talking point to equate something I say to religious thinking. And wrong. I criticize God-belief because there is no evidence to support the existence of a deity; I criticize your 9/11 beliefs because there is no evidence to support it. My beliefs are aligned with skeptical thinking.

Which happens to nicely match a plurality of liberal voters in surveys.

Why do you feel the need to ascribe me to groups? Generalization never works.

I detest the simple gradients being cast upon ideologies.

If I didn’t make it clear, I believe that taking a neutral stance on 9-11 conspiracies, even now, is tacitly endorsing them.

“So we have less information on one day’s actions that occurred in front of millions of onlookers than we do on global warming and the greenhouse effect?”
*Actually, there’s very little you could deduce about 9/11 on the day it happened and in the days following.

No, I’m saying we’ve had more than six years to look at One Day under a microscope, minute by minute, yet you claim we have less information to judge that than, what, a century’s worth of weather data?

“Plus, when it comes power, wealthy comedians who contract with the most influential cable outlet in America would be included as “anyone in a position of power.””
*Are you really equating politicians with comedians?

Not “equating.” Comparing. Conspiracy fever is not merely the brave few seeking The Truth. It is a staple of the film industry. It is winked at by politicians such as John Kerry and John Edwards. It’s 2008. The entertainment industry has enormously influential. Carlin is a part of it.

“I don’t think it’s agnostic at all.”
*This isn’t a matter of opinion. The definition of an agnosticism is “asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.”

That’s the point, Bill. Anyone who reads the political posting on this blog knows there are quite a few things you feel quite certain about. 9-11 conspiracies just happen to support them.

*I don’t know about you, but I hear just as many conservatives as liberals citing the conspiracy theories.
Not a chance. Probably some Ron Paul believers, and even that it’s pretty narrow. But a broad, “FK, RFK, MLK, 9-11 combo package? That’s liberal red meat.

*Your beliefs of what happened on 9/11 have just as little proof.
If you really believe this, it undermines any claim you have to supporting non-religious, facts-based thinking. It’s flat-out wrong.

*I believe the Bush administration willingly let the terrorist attacks occur so as to make a seamless entrance into the Middle East, Bush’s plan all along.
Which happens to nicely match a plurality of liberal voters in surveys. It’s ideological. I’m not going sit back and let this game be played for 20 more years without pointing out the obvious.

Here is a list of the warnings that were completely ignored.