Rachel Maddow Roasts Conspiracy Theorists

You've got your birthers, your after-birthers, your truthers, your didn't-really-land-on-the-mooners, and countless other -ers. But they just keep getting dumber. Including "skeeters." Por ejemplo. . .

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Truthers Begat the Birthers, Which Begat the Deathers. . .

"Hell yeah, I've got a redeeming quality! I. . .uh. . .gimme a minute."
Image from source, Think Progress

I understand the dilemma presented to today's news and news commentary shows. I understand how news and entertainment came together in a distasteful mashup. I understand why people who by all rights should not be famous or popular are. How do I know? Because I've been a blogger for four years, that's how!

Yes, my little tiny corner of the interwebs is just a random collage of (mostly) politics, (sometimes) confessional, (occasional) pop culture repository, and other assorted tidbits. But I think about these things. I wonder, "Should I really be giving [fill in the blank: Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Glenn Beck] any more coverage? He/she would fade away if people stopped paying attention" And it's true. But when real life politicians, politicos and wannabes provide more entertainment (lurid or not) than fiction, it is hard to ignore.

So add Andrew Breitbart to the list. He's just as much of an attention whore as any of the above. He is utterly without scruples. He's staged and/or doctored "evidence" in order to perpetrate faux news stories that are largely hoaxes. And yet, he continues to get press, and get on shows like Real Time with Bill Maher. As distasteful as Breitbart and his shtick is, it is also important to shine a light on its awfulness.

[Excerpt]

Meet The Deathers: Andrew Brietbart Website Pushing Conspiracy Theory That Osama Might Not Be Dead



Mere hours after President Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden, supported by incontrovertible DNA evidence, the conspiracy theorists are hard at work. Andrew Breitbart, a prominent right-wing commentator with close ties to the Republican Party and the Tea Party, is pushing the theory on his website Big Peace. . .
 
Read more at: Think Progress

Conspiracy Corner: After "Birther" or Why Conspiracy Theories Don't Die

Ever get sucked in by a conspiracy theory? I did. For a while there--at or near the beginning of it--I was intrigued with the 9/11 Truth or "truthers." I didn't want to be, mind you. I found the idea that the Bush Administration staged 9/11, or even just let it happen, to be horrifying. As much as I detested that group of people, I didn't want to believe they were capable of acts so evil. But I started to, a little. I remain unconvinced that we have the complete picture of what happened, and that elements of the official story are either incomplete or incorrect. But it didn't take long for the truther movement to seem a little more nutty than true.

What pushed me out were the rationalizations made for story elements that didn't fit the narrative. And conclusions drawn that seemed crazy. Or outlandish behaviors by truthers trying to get their "message" out. Or, the amazing amount of people that would have had to be involved in the conspiracy. And the motives required to pull off such a scheme when there would be easier ways to do it. Or countless other things. But they had me for a little while.

So, there is no mystery--at least for me--as to why conspiracy theories get rolling. At first, it feels like this intensely interesting, secret story. One after another, you discover new "facts," and they are presented in such a way that they come together like a puzzle. When the story (in my case, 9/11) feels like it has holes in it, those puzzle pieces can seem to fit. . .maybe you have to trim it or hammer it into place, but maybe. . . But why is it that some will cling to a story, even after its seams start showing? And in the case of the Birthers, how is it that a story that was always flimsy, whose elements have all been shot down, is so durable?

On Thursday's The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell, guest host Chris Hayes interviewed two men who have written about this sort of thing (along with things like climate change denialism), and there is a science to it. Turns out conspiratorial thinking is actually a pathology. Surprise!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

9/11, Truthers, The Real Story, and Lingering Doubts

The memory of 9/11 is still fresh or nearly so to many of us. More than the actual damage and casualties, I think we remember the sense of dread, the expectation that more was coming. It was a true "the sky is falling" feeling. Looking back, the actual number of human losses and the amount of destruction was bad, but not unprecedented by war or natural disaster. But that September morning will live on for its power to draw strong reactions from people.

This past week, The National Geographic Channel aired a special called 911: Science and Conspiracy, which I finally got around to watching today. I've been bothered by many parts of the official story for a very long time, and will confess flirting with the "truther" movement. I even wrote a post about it early in this blog's history, which I most recently revised and reposted here: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Redux. My personal views on 9/11 have evolved even further along since then.

Having since been exposed to the "birther" and "deather" craziness this year, I've seen the commonalities and pitfalls of conspiracy theories, and what the key problems are with any theorist. As I see it, conspiracy theorists undo themselves when they try too hard to come up with alternate narratives to the "official stories." It is all well and good to point out the flaws in any given history. When someone tries to paint an alternate timeline--and especially when they get too wedded to it--that is when it becomes easy to punch holes in their theories.

Equally damaging to any theory is the fact that each one gathers barnacles of crazy. A sensible supposition will get buried under whack-a-doodle nutball debris. And then the whole theory gets labeled as paranoid delusion, even if an element of it is compelling. What's more, it is very easy to be pulled under that pile of debris, and not notice at first. Once you buy the central premise: "We have not been told the truth," and then you hear one reasonable sounding element of a theory, you are on the hook. Sometimes, every further element of the story can set that hook even deeper.

911: Science and Conspiracy is a documentary that seeks to debunk key theories around 9/11. Scientific experiments are conducted that apparently contradict the main core of the Truther movement. Not surprisingly, the interviewed Truthers are not swayed by the experiments. But my problems with the official story of 9/11 is not addressed by the film.

My problem has nothing to do with the planes (real or simulated) or the collapses of buildings (imploded or not). My problem has to do with the fact that our two most strategic cities were attacked by four planes piloted by inexperienced pilots, and three out of four succeeded. Planes were on radar, and were known to be hijacked at various points. Nobody and nothing intercepted them. And outside of a few sources, we have almost no public released record of the events. The first plane to hit the World Trade Center was accidentally captured by a documentarian. The second plane had more views, since television news crews were trained on the first incident. But the Pentagon plane? We have one set of fuzzy, inconclusive shots from a gas station or something. Why?

I am unconvinced that the Pentagon has such crappy surveillance of its property. And I'm unconvinced that our government would be powerless to stop at least one of these planes. So my level of "trutherness" is pretty reasonable, I think. No missing planes, no huge number of accomplices. I just think that yes our government at the time contained enough evil to allow or to participate in such a thing.

JFK, 9/11, Obama's Birth Certificate and the Moon

Image from source, AOL News

Conspiracy theories come in many flavors, and theorists com in all political stripes. As far as I know, people who don't believe the "official" story on John F. Kennedy's assassination don't fit any particular political beliefs as a whole. "9/11 truthers" are likely mostly left-wing, though I'm sure there are a few libertarians in there. The people who claim that Barack Obama is not a "natrual born citizen" (known as "birthers") are mostly conservative. Make that far right wing, as I'm not sure they fit the traditional definition of conservative.

The politics of moon landing deniers aren't at the forefront of their movement. But their belief in the theory that the moon shots were faked is every bit as fervent as some truthers'* or birthers' beliefs. And today, it would seem that we have proof that we really did land on the moon. The question is, will the conspiracy therorists believe it? Or will they just add a whole new chapter (on how this was faked too) to their theory?

[Excerpt]

Apollo Sites Spotted by Lunar Scout

For stubborn folks who still believe the Apollo astronauts never landed on the moon, NASA has new images — definitive proof — that clearly show the Apollo 11 lander that carried the first astronauts to the lunar surface 40 years ago. . .

Read more at: AOL News

*Full disclosure: Of these theories, the only one I have any adherence to is the 9/11 Truth movement, and only to parts of that. I don't like to assign my own storyline to 9/11, and I don't think the planes were fake, or any of that. I just don't buy the official story as written. So I guess I'm a "Truther Lite."

More on Michael Reagan's "Shoot Them" Bit

A little while back, I posted a piece about radio host and former first-son Michael Reagan's call to shoot "9/11 Truthers." It's an amazingly brazen (and most probably illegal) thing to say on the radio. Not to mention stupid. Now, I don't know much about this Mark Dice character that is at the center of the issue, except for this.

I am sympathetic to the 9/11 Truthers cause, though far from completely on board with them. I believe we've been told a fabricated story about what happened that day, some surely true, and some surely false. But I have no answers to what exactly did happen, and that speculation is where this group treads on thin ice. Shoot down a few of their conclusions and you've spoiled the whole movement in most people's eyes. They should stick to the facts, and avoid drawing conclusions.

And I don't support the action of sending soldiers letters in the way Mark Dice did, though once again, I'm there in spirit. Just not in action. I don't know what the answer is to get at the truth. But I don't think Mark Dice's tactic is the way to go. And surely, Michael Reagan's way is beyond the pale. Here's a video giving you some of the background story. It's over 8 minutes long, but you can tune out at about six minutes, where it just repeats what has come before. Interesting stuff.

More on Bill Maher vs. 9/11 Truthers

Photo from source, MonstersAndCritics.com

Researching stories on the internet, which I have to do to find things to post, can often illuminate the old "two sides to every story" cliche. When I was watching the fracas on Real Time with Bill Maher last night (detailed in previous posts), I wondered what the 9/11 Truth movement's people thought of the episode.

Not surprisingly, they thought it was just great. They all seem to think that Bill Maher was really shown up, and that their movement would get a boost out of what happened. It's one of those moments when you scratch your head and think, "did they watch the same show I did?"

Listen, I have a 54" TV and a surround-sound stereo, and I could neither see what the protesters' sign said, nor hear what they were shouting (beyond "what about building 7?"). You cannot be effective if nobody knows what you're on about. They also interrupted a live show, one that does not feature audience participation. Who would any host react to that, even if he was totally on your side?

Bill Maher is a comedian. He's had to deal with hecklers his whole career. Did you really think that he was going to bring you up on stage, and let you be part of the panel discussion? You guys took a cause that many people (myself included) are on the fence about, and you made it very difficult for us to climb down onto your side.

For a glimpse of the 9/11 Truthers' take on this, go to: forum.prisonplanet.com

To read a news story on this item, go to: MonstersAndCritics.com

9/11 Truthers Self Destruct on Bill Maher's Show

I just finished watching last night's Real Time with Bill Maher, which was as usual, quite good. John Edwards reinforced my support for him by being articulate and thoughtful, and looking and sounding quite Presidential. The panel was great, even Chris Matthews.

But at one point during the show (and I don't know if this is already all over the blogosphere, but I'd imagine it is), some bozo in the audience started yelling inaudible rants. Even when Bill Maher charged into the audience to help throw the guy out, you could not understand his ranting (there was at least one other person, a woman, yelling too). They had a sign, but I have no idea what it said. The only thing that was audible was "what about building 7?" Oh, boy.

So it was a "9/11 Truther." I have some sympathy for these guys, because I don't think we've been told the truth about 9/11 either. But this idiot(s) did the movement no favors in this case. They made the most arguable problem in the 9/11 story--building 7--sound just as nutty as the most tinfoil-hat theories of what happened on that day. Whatever momentum was building in the effort to "get the truth out" has been derailed by this sort of idiocy. You're just making it that much easier for Bill Maher, and everyone who watches him, to dismiss any theory you put out there. Way to go.