I heard a Barack Obama ad on the radio this morning. Texas will hold its primary on March 4 and Sen. Obama was encouraging his supporters to turn out. In the ad, an announcer, who sounded like a college student, made three claims:
1. That Sen. Obama was against the war in Iraq from the beginning;
2. That Sen. Obama supports "change;"and
3. That Sen. Obama "gets us."
The first claim is a legitimate attempt to differentiate himself from his challenger, Sen. Clinton. However, what of the other two claims?
It seems like all of the candidates, both Republican and Democrat, are in favor of change. However, promising change without more does not convey any useful information. Declaring pudding to be the national dessert and replacing the national anthem with a polka would constitute change, but would not be a good reason to support a candidate. Here, the message assumes that the listener already knows what type of change is favored by the candidate or else trusts the candidate to implement good changes rather than bad or meaningless changes.
The claim that Sen. Obama "gets us" is even harder to evaluate. Who is the "us" that he gets? Is it college students? Is it people who listen to the radio on their way to work in the morning? What does it mean to "get" someone? The statement is either meaningless or is a shameless attempt to pit Generations X and Y against Sen. Clinton's Baby Boomer generation.
I realize that it is expecting too much for a 30 second radio spot to make an intellectual analysis of the important issues in the race. However, useful information would have been nice.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Friday, February 15, 2008
Which Coincidence Do You Find More Unbelievable?
Recently I wrote a post about Willie Nelson's view that the United States government was behind 9/11. For those of you who missed it, Willie appeared on a national radio show and offered his opinion that the collapse of the twin towers was too controlled to have been brought about by the hijacked airplanes which crashed into them. I thought that these comments placed Willie way out on the fringe. However, apparently Willie is not the only person endorsing conspiracy theories. No sooner had I made my post than I received a comment stating, "I, too, doubt that an airplane crash collasped both towers. I've read respected architectural professional groups that say no way would the buildings fall without exposives planted in them. The conspiracy theory goes that there were fire drills several days before in the buildings and someone had ample time to plant exposives in the stair wells."
Here is why I don't buy the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think it all comes down to which set of coincidences you find to be more unbelievable.
For the conspiracy theorists, the similarity between the collapse of the twin towers and planned demolitions is too great to be coincidence. Because the towers fell straight down, they must have been felled by explosives placed within the buildings at strategic points. My initial reaction is that this is a false comparison. We don't have enough experience with airlines crashing into skyscrapers to know how they are supposed to fall. In fact, we don't have any experience with this phenomenon. Therefore, to try to draw a comparison between something we have experience with (planned demolitions) and something we have no experience with (airlines crashing into skyscrapers) is misleading.
However, let's play along and assume that the comparison is valid enough to raise a question. In order for the conspiracy theory to be probable, there would have to be an entire chain of events leading up to the fatal moment, each of which would have to be more probable than the alternate chain of events.
1. The government would have to have known about Al Qaeda's plans in enough time to plant explosives in the World Trade Towers.
We know that Al Qaeda hijacked airliners and that they crashed into the World Trade towers. According to the conspiracy theory, this event was used as a cover for the actual destruction of the twin towers. Thus, in order for the conspiracy theory to be valid, there would have had to have been advance knowledge of Al Qaeda's plans in enough time to surreptiously plant explosives at strategic points throughout the twin towers. How likely is that? We can't find Osama bin Ladin and we lack sufficient agents with Arab language skills, but we knew enough about Al Qaeda's plans in advance to pull off a major conspiracy. The United States government is simply not that competent.
2. Assuming that we knew about Al Qaeda's plans and intentionally chose not to stop them, why would it have been necessary for our government to blow up the towers?
Hijacking airliners and crashing them into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon was an act of war sufficient to provoke the American people. Even if the twin towers had not been completely destroyed, the reaction of the American people would have been the same. Thus, in order for the conspiracy theory to be likely, the United States government would have had to make a conscious decision to magnify the destructive power of the attack even though this was not necessary to achieve the purposes of the conspiracy.
3. The government would have had to have planted a massive amount of explosives in the World Trade towers without anyone noticing.
According to my commenter, this could have been done during a fire drill prior to the attacks. How likely is that? As someone who has participated in multiple fire drills, I have never seen everyone participate. That means there would have been people left in the building to observe the planting of the explosives, not to mention all of the thousands of people milling around outside the towers. Also, how long does it take to plant explosives? The typical fire drill does not last for hours and hours. However, common sense would indicate that it would take many, many hours to get the explosives in place and conceal them.
4. The government would have had to have maintained secrecy for all these years.
To my knowledge, no one has ever come forward and claimed to have participated in the conspiracy or the subsequent cover-up. However, we all know that the U.S. government is incapable of keeping secrets. That is why we know about Abu Ghraib and various other atrocities committed by the U.S. military in Iraq. In order to pull this off, it would have required secrecy not seen since the Manhattan Project. Since we were not able to achieve complete secrecy for the Manhattan Project, how likely is it that the United States government would have been able to achieve it here?
5. The Bush administration would have to be guilty of high treason on a magnitude never seen before in this country.
If the conspiracy theorists are right, President Bush and his government engaged in an act of war against the American people and should be executed as traitors. While I can believe a lot of things about the Bush administration, I personally, find this impossible to accept. Not only that, but if the Bush administration were as evil as its critics contend, why are we still living in a democratic country where the Bush administration will leave office in 11 months. If George W. Bush was the American Voldemort, he would have suspended the Constitution and declared martial law. Instead, he has sat by while the Democratic party reclaimed control of Congress and will probably regain control of the White House this year.
Conclusion
While I am not inclined toward conspiracy theories to begin with, I find that the series of events which would have had to have occurred for the United States government to be responsible for 9/11 is so improbable that even Oliver Stone would have trouble making the argument with a straight face.
Here is why I don't buy the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think it all comes down to which set of coincidences you find to be more unbelievable.
For the conspiracy theorists, the similarity between the collapse of the twin towers and planned demolitions is too great to be coincidence. Because the towers fell straight down, they must have been felled by explosives placed within the buildings at strategic points. My initial reaction is that this is a false comparison. We don't have enough experience with airlines crashing into skyscrapers to know how they are supposed to fall. In fact, we don't have any experience with this phenomenon. Therefore, to try to draw a comparison between something we have experience with (planned demolitions) and something we have no experience with (airlines crashing into skyscrapers) is misleading.
However, let's play along and assume that the comparison is valid enough to raise a question. In order for the conspiracy theory to be probable, there would have to be an entire chain of events leading up to the fatal moment, each of which would have to be more probable than the alternate chain of events.
1. The government would have to have known about Al Qaeda's plans in enough time to plant explosives in the World Trade Towers.
We know that Al Qaeda hijacked airliners and that they crashed into the World Trade towers. According to the conspiracy theory, this event was used as a cover for the actual destruction of the twin towers. Thus, in order for the conspiracy theory to be valid, there would have had to have been advance knowledge of Al Qaeda's plans in enough time to surreptiously plant explosives at strategic points throughout the twin towers. How likely is that? We can't find Osama bin Ladin and we lack sufficient agents with Arab language skills, but we knew enough about Al Qaeda's plans in advance to pull off a major conspiracy. The United States government is simply not that competent.
2. Assuming that we knew about Al Qaeda's plans and intentionally chose not to stop them, why would it have been necessary for our government to blow up the towers?
Hijacking airliners and crashing them into the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon was an act of war sufficient to provoke the American people. Even if the twin towers had not been completely destroyed, the reaction of the American people would have been the same. Thus, in order for the conspiracy theory to be likely, the United States government would have had to make a conscious decision to magnify the destructive power of the attack even though this was not necessary to achieve the purposes of the conspiracy.
3. The government would have had to have planted a massive amount of explosives in the World Trade towers without anyone noticing.
According to my commenter, this could have been done during a fire drill prior to the attacks. How likely is that? As someone who has participated in multiple fire drills, I have never seen everyone participate. That means there would have been people left in the building to observe the planting of the explosives, not to mention all of the thousands of people milling around outside the towers. Also, how long does it take to plant explosives? The typical fire drill does not last for hours and hours. However, common sense would indicate that it would take many, many hours to get the explosives in place and conceal them.
4. The government would have had to have maintained secrecy for all these years.
To my knowledge, no one has ever come forward and claimed to have participated in the conspiracy or the subsequent cover-up. However, we all know that the U.S. government is incapable of keeping secrets. That is why we know about Abu Ghraib and various other atrocities committed by the U.S. military in Iraq. In order to pull this off, it would have required secrecy not seen since the Manhattan Project. Since we were not able to achieve complete secrecy for the Manhattan Project, how likely is it that the United States government would have been able to achieve it here?
5. The Bush administration would have to be guilty of high treason on a magnitude never seen before in this country.
If the conspiracy theorists are right, President Bush and his government engaged in an act of war against the American people and should be executed as traitors. While I can believe a lot of things about the Bush administration, I personally, find this impossible to accept. Not only that, but if the Bush administration were as evil as its critics contend, why are we still living in a democratic country where the Bush administration will leave office in 11 months. If George W. Bush was the American Voldemort, he would have suspended the Constitution and declared martial law. Instead, he has sat by while the Democratic party reclaimed control of Congress and will probably regain control of the White House this year.
Conclusion
While I am not inclined toward conspiracy theories to begin with, I find that the series of events which would have had to have occurred for the United States government to be responsible for 9/11 is so improbable that even Oliver Stone would have trouble making the argument with a straight face.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Has Willie Nelson Jumped the Shark?
When Willie Nelson first surfaced as a long-haired, pot smoking, country music outlaw, it was hard not to like him. When people use the slogan "Keep Austin Weird," they are probably thinking about Willie or someone like him. However, recent comments suggest that he has crossed the boundary from likeably weird to just plain nuts.
In an interview on a national radio show on February 4th, Willie suggested that the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11 was too symetrical to have been caused by the hijacked airliners crashing into them. "How naive are we - what do they think we'll go for?" he asked.
Willie also showed a stunning lack of clarity when he questioned why we attacked Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia following 9/11. According to Willie's logic, we should have gone after Saudi Arabia because most of the hijackers came from there. Of course, this ignores the fact that the Taliban government of Afghanistan supported Osama bin Ladin and allowed him to operate with impunity within its borders, while Saudi Arabia expelled bin Ladin and was hostile to him.
It is time to add Willie to the list of celebrities who no longer deserve to be taken seriously.
In an interview on a national radio show on February 4th, Willie suggested that the collapse of the twin towers on 9/11 was too symetrical to have been caused by the hijacked airliners crashing into them. "How naive are we - what do they think we'll go for?" he asked.
Willie also showed a stunning lack of clarity when he questioned why we attacked Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia following 9/11. According to Willie's logic, we should have gone after Saudi Arabia because most of the hijackers came from there. Of course, this ignores the fact that the Taliban government of Afghanistan supported Osama bin Ladin and allowed him to operate with impunity within its borders, while Saudi Arabia expelled bin Ladin and was hostile to him.
It is time to add Willie to the list of celebrities who no longer deserve to be taken seriously.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Creepy Hotels
The Shining by Stephen King really spooked me. If you don't remember the movie, it is about a writer and his family who work as caretakers for a haunted hotel during the winter. In one particularly scary scene, the little boy rides his Big Wheel down a long, dark corridor only to encounter a pair of ghostly twin girls.
I was traveling recently and it occurred to me how many hotel corridors resemble the one in The Shining. It doesn't matter whether it is the Mirage in Las Vegas or the Candlewood Suites in Beaumont, but hotels tend to go for long, dimly-lit corridors with dark carpets. If it is night and the long, dark corridor is devoid of other guests, you halfway expect to see a ghost. It may be that hotels are trying to save energy or perhaps they want to create a calming influence, but it seems rare that hotels go for bright, cheerful hallways.
I was traveling recently and it occurred to me how many hotel corridors resemble the one in The Shining. It doesn't matter whether it is the Mirage in Las Vegas or the Candlewood Suites in Beaumont, but hotels tend to go for long, dimly-lit corridors with dark carpets. If it is night and the long, dark corridor is devoid of other guests, you halfway expect to see a ghost. It may be that hotels are trying to save energy or perhaps they want to create a calming influence, but it seems rare that hotels go for bright, cheerful hallways.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
