Thursday, December 28, 2006

larisa: why do they hate us?

* larisa: why do they hate us? let larisa count the ways

* kleiman:
"Heroin, even more than cocaine, illustrates the near-futility of trying to use drug law enforcement to control drug abuse once a drug has found a mass market. Prices have been dropping (about 80% in inflation-adjusted terms for cocaine, much more than that for heroin) even as the number of dealers going to prison has soared."

* cannon to sander hicks:
"You simply are not worthy of debate. You must be opposed relentlessly, but never treated as equals."

* henley:
"From what I can tell, “Iraqi security forces” are not an arm of the state (what state?), a self-willed bureaucratic entity or even a pliable tool of American will, but instead a locus of contention. They’re not the army, they’re the battleground. Iraq’s different factions vie for control of as much of the Army and police as they can get, to use against other factions vying for control of as much of the Army and police as they can get. This process seems to constitute Iraq’s real politics, independent of the Green Zone’s parliamentary sideshow. Each faction commands the units it can command, however covertly. Each faction considers the units it can’t command to be fair game."


steven andresen said...

I've read Cannon's piece, or parts of it. He begins his discussion of some 9-11 researcher, saying,

"...When I was a boy, only a small number of people questioned evolution. Then the Creationists went on their decades-long-offensive -- their Weltanschauungkrieg, as it were.

Few scientists devoted much energy to opposing the creationists, for fear (I imagine) of offending religious sensibilities. Result: A pseudoscientific belief once relegated to a few snake-handlers in Tennesee is now the majority opinion, or is very nearly so.

During that same time, the Holocaust deniers tried to make inroads. The scientific community and the larger society treated them with undisguised contempt. Decent people did not allow the pseudoscientists to sit down to table for a debate because such a position was considered unworthy of that dignity, and the people who championed such notions were considered beyond civilization.

Everyone understood that the moment we treat the Holocaust denier's casuistry as a legitimate position, the moment we treated the people offering such arguments with anything other than disdain, the deniers would win.

That's why decent people took this attitude: "No, I will not sit down to debate with you. You aren't worthy of that. Don't get within spitting distance."

Result: Even in an age which embraces unreason, Holocaust denial remains a minority belief, while Creationism prospers.

The lesson is obvious."

You know that I'm interested in promoting the resolution of conflict by means of argument. I've found some people who think that argument is futile, some who find it involves too much work, others who think that their opponents are just not worth the effort. They have these opinions, but they don't often, or ever, try to argue the point.

Cannon here at least tries to argue why his side should not argue with his opponents.

The argument seems to be that if you pay them any attention, that will only encourage them. So, according to Cannon, the evidence of our experience with Holocaust deniers shows that we should just ignore the 9-11 conspiracy people and they will, similarly, never get going.

I wonder whether the fact that many people are creationists and few people are holocaust deniers is more related to the fact that more people are Christians and there are very few people who question things like the holocaust.

There is no really good reason to think that arguing with people fans the flames of the opinions you oppose, or that ignoring them successfully marginalizes them.

I don't even think killing the people who hold views and burning all their books gets rid of their ideas for good, which is where an uncareful Mr. Cannon could head.

I have some idea why he might oppose these people. Maybe he thinks the creationists encourage poor school curriculums in science. Maybe he's thinking only racists advocate the investigation of world war two and the facts around the killing of millions of people. Maybe he thinks that 9-11 dissent is just a waste of time and keeps us from doing more important political activities.

I am not sure why he is so opposed to arguing with people with whom he disagrees. Maybe he thinks arguing with the holocaust deniers only fuels their hatreds? Maybe arguing with the creationists angers them into more obstructionism? Maybe arguing with the 9-11 people only angers Cannon?

He thinks his time has been wasted by all the people who have asked him to pay attention to the stories around 9-11. He even wants to give up blogging because he's seen something in the people who are interested in 9-11 that sickens him. Maybe he would feel the same way if he attracted pedophiles who wanted to talk about their feelings for youngsters?

Some people take it upon themselves to try to resolve these issues. They may have an interest in the subject. Maybe they like the detective work. Maybe there's something about the recieved view that doesn't hold water for them.

Cannon may feel uninterested in 9-11, or bored, or frustrated that there are some people who don't agree with the story as he sees it. But that fact does not, in itself discredit the questions people have about 9-11.

Cannon has arguments about many of the issues raised by critics of the 9-11 consensus. I am interested in his arguments. But, he started out saying that people who have these positions, despite whatever arguments they might have, should be ignored and insulted for their daring to have a different view.

Why should he have arguments for 9-11 when he says the 9-11 researchers are no better than the creationists or holocaust deniers he recommends we shun?

lukery said...

SteveA - Cannon is a good researcher, and a good blogger - but he's apparently at the end of his tether - not with 911 conspiracy theories generally - but with Controlled Demolition theorists. He has apparently been 'driven to distraction' regarding this particular element and his current statements reflect his frustration.

i hope that he gets over his current frustration.

steven andresen said...

Maybe if he takes a break, he can come back with new eyes and more energy. I have liked his writing. It would be a loss to us for him to just walk away.

lukery said...

fingers crossed.

perhaps he can get back into the swing of thiongs with his lonelygirl15 posts :-)

oldschool said...

I've seen Luke cite Cannon w/approval (w/out much follow-up - my bad). But I just read his letter to Sander Hicks, and, though I assume he's made good points before - I don't get it.

I'll leave the specifics to Damien, who's the best I've read; but in general, I think it comes down to:

A) None of the logistics, nor physics, nor common sense, add up, in any way, to a confirmation of the official U.S. Govt position;


B) The people about whom we're talking just aren't competent enought to have pulled it off. Especially w/o a leak.

Best (or worst) mystery in U.S. history - and that includes the JFK, RFK, and MLK hits.

Why in the world is Cannon taking this so personally?

And to compare argument about 9-11 with Holocaust Denial Or Creationism is intellectually lazy.... no it's dishonest, and dangerous sophistry.

Take a break, Cannon.

LeeB said...

All good points, Oldschool. About the only thing I would add is the long history of the BFEE of doing the most outrageous things and surviving them all, leaks or no leaks. I keep hoping that the 'sea change' revealed on November 7 proves to be strong enough to gain the momentum necessary to rid us of these criminals once and for all.