The problem of the "failed historian", and Jonathan Kay's book Among the Truthers.

[greyl]

Kay's research is reassuring, in its way, because by taking all these obsessions seriously, he can diagnose their origin. The problem of the conspiracy theorist is the problem of the "failed historian." Kay gives an example. For a while, Sigmund Freud believed that Shakespeare wrote Hamlet after his father died. When Freud wrote The Interpretation of Dreams, he cited the play as a key Oedipal work. But in 1919, historians discovered that Shakespeare wrote the play before his father died. How did Freud respond? He became obsessed with the conspiracy theory that the 17th Earl of Oxford had written the plays credited to "William Shakespeare."

Are the paranoid Democrats of 2006 and the unhinged Republicans of 2011 following in the footsteps of Sigmund Freud? Maybe. They might even argue that the stakes are higher for them: All Freud had to do was defend a thick chunk of his book. They're on the cusp of losing their country. In that sense, these modern-day political conspiracy theories may actually be comforting: They assume that our political leaders are hyper-competent. They've developed, then covered up, Rube Goldberg designs to get what they want and maintain their power. This is no small achievement. If, on the other hand, the conspiracy theorists are wrong, well, that means the world is random, and the people who wield power or influence can screw up like everyone else. No one wants to believe that.
http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2292081

Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America's Growing Conspiracist Underground at Amazon.com

Product Description
From left-wing 9/11 conspiracy theorists to right-wing Obama-hating "birthers"—a sobering, eyewitness look at how America's marketplace of ideas is fracturing into a multitude of tiny, radicalized boutiques—each peddling its own brand of paranoia

Throughout most of our nation's history, the United States has been bound together by a shared worldview. But the 9/11 terrorist attacks opened a rift in the collective national psyche: Increasingly, Americans are abandoning reality and retreating to Internet-based fantasy worlds conjured into existence out of our own fears and prejudices.

The most disturbing symptom of this trend is the 9/11 Truth movement, whose members believe that Bush administration officials engineered the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a pretext to launch wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But these "Truthers" are merely one segment of a vast conspiracist subculture that includes many other groups: anti-Obama extremists who believe their president is actually a foreign-born Manchurian Candidate seeking to destroy the United States from within; radical alternative-medicine advocates who claim that vaccine makers and mainstream doctors are conspiring to kill large swathes of humanity; financial neo-populists who have adapted the angry message of their nineteenth-century forebears to the age of Twitter; Holocaust deniers; fluoride phobics; obsessive Islamophobes; and more.

Kay's Blog: http://amongthetruthers.com/

[zappaman]

1. thanks!

looks like good reading!

[Stanchetalarooni]

2. Me thinks that you confuse hypothesis and theory with theorem.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.
A theorem is a statement that has been proven on the basis of previously established statements, such as other theorems, and previously accepted statements, such as axioms.

[zappaman]

3. Me thinks you have confused bullshit with evidence.

Hence your devotion to snake oil salesman Gage.

[noise]

4. Kay's analysis has flaws

1)The secrecy. If there is nothing substantive to question then why are some key records still classified? For example MFR's with CIA and FBI agents involved in the al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar sharing failures.

2)Claiming incompetence is a clever way of disguising corruption. For example the invasion of Iraq was blamed on faulty intelligence.

3)Glaring conflicts of interest are overlooked (i.e. Zelikow as executive director of the 9/11 Commission).

4)Double standard. Holding those who question 9/11 to a higher standard than government officials.

[LARED]

5. So does yours.

1)The secrecy. If there is nothing substantive to question then why are some key records still classified? For example MFR's with CIA and FBI agents involved in the al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar sharing failures.

Sometimes there are state secrets for good reason. Reasons that have nothing to do with truther fantasies.

2)Claiming incompetence is a clever way of disguising corruption. For example the invasion of Iraq was blamed on faulty intelligence.

Claiming incompetence MIGHT be a clever way to disguise corruption. You could also be incompetent and corrupt (a likely scenario) or one could be just plain incompetent.

3)Glaring conflicts of interest are overlooked (i.e. Zelikow as executive director of the 9/11 Commission).

How does Zelikow have a conflict of interest?

4)Double standard. Holding those who question 9/11 to a higher standard than government officials.

Too funny

[Ohio Joe]

6. Come on, get with it

Zelikow worked for bush, therefore since bush was in on it, so was Zelikow. Duh. bush should have been choosing people he did not know from adam because politicians never choose people they know for anything, bush was the only one who ever did that. Sheesh.

[SDuderstadt]

7. Actually...

Zelikow was chosen by Kean and Hamilton; Bush opposed the appointment. I'm trying to decipher where the "conflict of interest" was.

[noise]

8. Zelikow had too many ties to the Bush administration

He was part of the NSC transition team and a long time colleague of Condoleezza Rice.

Kean and Hamilton pretended they were ignorant of Zelikow's background, going so far to claim Zelikow was at fault for not including some of his associations on his resume. As if executive director was a run of the mill position that involved no vetting.

[SDuderstadt]

12. Oh, bullshit n/t

[Ohio Joe]

9. It was a clever ruse

Both Kean and Hamilton worked secretly for bush and picked Zelikow with bush opposing to confuse everyone. It seems to make no sense... It worked perfectly.

[noise]

11. The bottom line

is that the person picked for the job had pretty close ties to the Bush administration. Philip Shenon (not exactly a 9/11 truther) did not have flattering things to say about Zelikow in his book The Commission.

[Ohio Joe]

13. Of course

Both Kean and Hamilton are in on it as well... I think by this point the list of people not in on it is smaller the those that are.

[noise]

15. This is a good example of a double standard

Kean and Hamilton picked a Bush administration insider to run the commission and I'm off base and out of line for pointing it out. I should believe them when they say they had no idea of his associations even though a Google search would have provided the information.

Evidently it is also unfair to point out that Philip Shenon found that Zelikow did conduct himself in a manner indicative of someone with a conflict of interest.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Please cite Shenon's...

exact words.

[noise]

17. I can't cite the entire book

Here are a couple of aspects:

PHILIP SHENON: Well, what I can tell you is that in 2003, Karl Rove called Zelikow a number of times at the commission. We know this because there are phone logs recording Rove’s calls in. Now, Zelikow had a lot of ties to the Bush administration, and that was known to some degree when he signed onto the investigation. And he had assured the commission that he would do his best to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest and would cut off most of these ties with his friends in the White House and elsewhere.

It becomes known on the commission staff in 2003 that despite these promises, Zelikow is having conversations with, of all people, Karl Rove, and this creates, as you might imagine, a huge amount of alarm and suspicion on the commission staff. You know, what is the executive director of the 9/11 Commission doing talking to Karl Rove? Now, Rove’s people at the White House, you know, his friends and allies there, and Zelikow insist that there was—that this was completely innocent and that this involved Zelikow’s work at the University of Virginia. And indeed Zelikow’s work at the University of Virginia centered around presidential histories, so Karl Rove is somebody he would have normally at the university had some sort of contact with, I assume.

And there’s an odd development thereafter, which is Zelikow calls in his secretary, shuts the door and informs her that she is no longer to keep phone logs of his contacts with the White House. The secretary is alarmed by this, worries that she’s being asked to do something improper and then contacts the chief lawyer for the commission to alert him to what’s happened. As I say, this whole sequence creates a great alarm and a great suspicion about what Zelikow was up to.

PHILIP SHENON: —in 2002—this is before the creation of the 9/11 Commission—Condoleezza Rice contacts Zelikow at the University of Virginia and asks him to prepare a document for the White House that would justify a preemptive war, an attack against an enemy that did not necessarily pose an immediate threat to the United States. In many ways, it would be a document that would turn American military doctrine on its head. Zelikow does this and produces quite a masterfully written memo called “The National Security Strategy of the United States," issued in September in 2002. And very few people know that this document was written by Philip Zelikow of the University of Virginia. That really wouldn’t be well known for another two years.

Now, bringing the story forward a bit, Bob Kerrey comes across the memo listing all of Zelikow’s ties to the White House and his contacts and his friendships and announces immediately to Tom Kean, the chairman of the commission, that “it’s either him or me. Zelikow goes, or I go. How could you possibly have hired somebody with so many conflicts of interest to run this investigation?"

Democracy Now interview with Philip Shenon

[SDuderstadt]

20. Yet, Shenon doesn't pronounce Zelikow guilty of...

a conflict of interest.

Those are your words.

[Stanchetalarooni]

26. When you wish upon a star.....

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY!
"We need a common enemy to unite us." -- Condoleeza Rice, March 2000

[zappaman]

27. When you make things up...

Wiki can't source that quote.
Can you?

[Ohio Joe]

18. No double standard

I simply point out that your implication is that they are in on it. You obviously consider them liars and seem to feel they put him there for the singular purpose of covering things up. Philip Shenon said it, so it must be true.

[noise]

19. You don't find it at all suspicious?

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/">9/11 Commission

Did the Zelikow appointment mesh with the stated charter?

[Ohio Joe]

21. OH MY GOD!

A government commision did not get every last answer! Such a thing has never been heard of, government is usualy so thorough! It must mean they were all in on it! Proof at last!

[spooked911]

22. why do you seem to think the govt has nothing to hide?

what is your deal?

[Ohio Joe]

23. Where did I ever say that?

Governments hide things all the time. Mundane things, things for good reason, things for very bad reasons, even sometimes things for no real reason at all. Happens all the time by every government. To try and turn the charter of the commission into a weird convoluted plot is... Well, it's beyond absurd. Think about what is being claimed here for a second... Bush somehow got Kean and Hamilton to agree to appointing Zelikow so bush could publicly oppose it and be ignored so that... Wait... What the fuck? You ever see one of those movies with crazy plot twist after crazy plot twist for no apparent reason... Even at the end when the whole picture is clear, they seem to be there just for the sake of being there? Thats what it seems to me the 9/11 truth industry has turned into... and just like those movies, I find it fascinating to watch... Even if it makes no sense.

[spooked911]

28. OK, so you admit govt hides things

why would they do that?

[Ohio Joe]

29. Perhaps you will read it if I post it a second time

As I said:

"Mundane things, things for good reason, things for very bad reasons, even sometimes things for no real reason at all. Happens all the time by every government."

Come on, at least read my post.

[spooked911]

31. I read it, and I just am clarifying that you admit the govt hides things

not sure exactly what you mean here-- "things for very bad reasons"

But clearly if they hide things, they can hide their own wrong doing right?

[Ohio Joe]

32. You keep making it sound as though I have ever denied it

Please don't do that, it is not true and there is no call for it.

"not sure exactly what you mean here-- "things for very bad reasons"

But clearly if they hide things, they can hide their own wrong doing right?"

That is exactly what I mean... Though that could also mean hiding wrong doing by another government.

That something can be though is in no way evidence that it is... Do you agree with that?

[LARED]

30. Spooked, let me ask a question

Should the CIA be a completely transparent institution?

Should the WH be a completely transparent institution?

How would you decide what to reveal and what to keep secret?

[LARED]

24. How about you tell how the

Zelikow appointment is not consistent with the stated charter.

[SDuderstadt]

14. Now you're suggesting that...

Kean and Hamilton were in on it??

More bullshit.

[noise]

10. What are the state secrets

involved in exposing the al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar sharing failures? I thought you were of the belief that there is nothing suspicious about the pre-9/11 conduct. Just run of the mill incompetence and turf battle. So why are you suggesting that state secrets has any bearing on this matter?

Some authors who write about 9/11 don't even consider a combination of corruption and incompetence. Instead all failures are chalked up to incompetence, risk aversion, turf battle or bureaucratic inefficiency. For example John Farmer.

I've noted a similar double standard on this forum. There is more concern about the conduct of 9/11 skeptics than there is in regard to government conduct.

FTR I'm not saying Kay is completely off base. IMO he has valid criticisms of the 9/11 truth movement.

[LARED]

25. An easy one is that there are other

intelligence assets that could be compromised by exposing in complete detail the failure to share information about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar.

You keep going back to some mystical corruption issue as if there is evidence offical corruption played a role is 9/11. Do you have anything other than speculation? Anything?