Sez Who?

 

“One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.”

“Muslims are the majority of terrorists.”

Where do you draw the line between bias, opinion, and fact?  And where does outright lying fit in?  Should you draw a line?  How shall we interpret and implement the First Amendment?ⁱ

Justice Potter Stewart is remembered (among other things) for his attempted definition of “hard-core pornography”: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it …”ⁱⁱ Not everyone agreed,ⁱⁱⁱ some questioning the “definition” and others the decision. In fact, another concurring opinion in the same case, that of Justices Black and Douglas, maintained that the First Amendment does not permit censorship of any kind. Is “censorship” the same thing as the banning of free speech? And is it really total?

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. didn't think so, writing "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."^iv Why not?  The test that the Court applied was the possibility of creating a “clear and present danger.”^v In the case they were evaluating, the Court decided unanimously that the plaintiff had crossed that line by pamphleteering against the [First World] war and urging draftees not to cooperate, and his conviction for conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act was upheld. Speaking for the entire court Holmes related the view that particular statements had to be viewed in the context of the times. Statements which were considered unexceptionable in peacetime might be punishable in time of war.

But ideas about the definition of obscenity and clear and present danger aren't really the main issue. The real question has to do with free speech. Is it absolute?

That, though, brings up another question. Are there absolutes? Or do views of “eternal truths” really depend on the times and mores. What does a Justice “know?” Justice Stewart was sure of himself, but was he doing any more than expressing a prejudice?

And, who decides what [absolute] community standards are? If those are the benchmarks by which people and ideas are to be judged, there has to be some way the individual will know what they are, and what the law is, if only so he can obey it. Although the decision would ultimately be made by a jury, the standard remains very subjective and that presents the possibility that someone might act in good faith according to what he believes are reasonable standards, but be overruled by a more conservative jury.

That kind of subjective criterion for what is and is not acceptable is also one that has been the focus of more recent debate. It has yielded euphemism as an art form, and euphemisms as societal norms: politically correct speech and the entire idea of “hate” speech are good examples. So is “advocacy journalism” – the use of what pose as objective news stories to promote personal biases or political spins. It is the Trojan Horse of journalism.

What's the line between “hate speech” and “fire?” Is there one? I think so. And my inclination would be that it relates to what the speech is likely to provoke or has already provoked. If the crime was caused by the speech,^vi the speech should be actionable. If the crime did not specifically result from the speech, it is the crime that should be punished, and adding a penalty for “bias” is simply a means of discouraging free speech. In the case of the individual who cries “wolf,” whose shouts of “fire” cause a crowd to stampede and result in an injury or death, the shouts are crimes additional to the injury or death and should be prosecuted as such. However offensive we may find calling a Jew a “kike” before mugging him, though, the crime was the mugging, not the insult. Using his words to add an additional punishable offense – a hate crime^vii – impinges on his freedom of speech.

Much remains subjective. But the punishment of speech that does not result in physical injury seems a contradiction of what we consider a basic right. The view that a particular statement is a threat, that it insults someone, or that it may cause psychological damage,^viii is certainly one that must be respected, however censorship is a solution that is even more threatening. No one will defend the idea that “names will never hurt you.” They will. As will verbal abuse and bullying. But punishing the name-caller is not the solution. Justice Louis Brandeis said, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."^ix,x,xi

Next episode: “Pride And Principles” – Gary Cooper, Grace Kelly, and American Foreign Policy

i     The real question relates to what the first amendment (and, by extension, the fourteenth – Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 1925) covers. That seems to be a moving target.

ii    Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, 1964. His opinion concurred with the Court's that the film that was being evaluated fell into the category of protected speech which, in his view, permitted all obscenity except hard core pornography.

iii   The Court, itself, later changed its view of obscenity. In Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 1973 it loosened its definition, making “community standards” the deciding factor.

iv    Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 1919.

v     The “imminent lawless action” test (the Brandenburg test) has replaced that concept. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 1969.

vi    Libel and incitement are two examples that come to mind immediately.

vii    Hate speech will be discussed in a future blog. Nah. Whom am I kidding? I haven't been subtle about where I stand, in this or prior blogs, so let me finish this off now. The whole idea of “hate speech” is obtuse. It's the creation of PD (politically delicate) people who are so sensitive to the feelings of others that they would sacrifice free speech and liberty in general for the chance to appear to be concerned for the rights of others. It's simply a way to pile on charges when someone is accused of another crime. Correctness is more important to them than the First Amendment. I don't buy that argument for a moment. There's no need to waste another blog on it.

viii     It is, however, difficult to determine who would be wise enough to make such a decision.

ix     Emphasis added.

x     Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 1927. Justice Brandeis joined in the decision to uphold the law under which the plaintiff was convicted, but that was for Constitutional reasons separate from the facts of the case.

xi    “The price of freedom of religion or of speech or of the press is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.” – Justice Robert Jackson

Here We Go Again

 

Every four years or so the President, whoever he is, makes a well-publicized effort to settle the Israel-Palestine dispute. It usually takes place at the beginning of a presidential election cycle and is designed to show determination to solve a problem with which he has either not dealt since the last election, or failed at solving earlier. It is a political move designed to show his involvement in world affairs and his determination to solve one of the world's most heralded crises, and it is a move intended to garner votes for himself and his party. After the election and the inevitable failure of the effort, it becomes of lesser importance.

That is the background for this past weekend's flurry of activity by President Obamaⁱ and the immediate rejection of his stand by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The demand by the President, one to which Prime Minister Netanyahu cannot accede, is for the establishment of a Palestinian State based on the 1949 truce borders.ⁱⁱ He fears that such borders would be “indefensible.” During the period that preceded the 1967 war there was constant harassment of Israeli farmers from the Golan as well as incitement from elsewhere.

But that was more than four decades ago. Weapons are better now – both military arms and political propaganda – and harassment and incitement have turned to aggression and murder. There is constant rocket attack from Gaza, which Israel gave to the Palestinians in the hope of peace – a hope that was quickly discredited. There is the likelihood that the Palestinians will secure from an ineffectual and fearful UN a declaration of “statehood.” It will be the statehood of a power sworn to destroy another UN member.

And, not surprisingly, there is now a threat from Egypt that its new government will scrap an existing treaty with Israel – a “peace” treaty for which Israel gave up the Sinai and its oil fields. The abrogation of treaties, however, is not new to Islam, dating back to 630 when Muhammad attacked and took Medina in violation of the Treaty of Hudaibiya which he had made with the Quraysh in 628. There is a religious rationalization of this position since it is based on a general Islamic concept of Taqiya, lying to those whom you consider your enemies, and there is also a lesser form, Kitman, in which deception involves telling only part of the truth. Thus Israel is wary since it is, at best, risky to enter into any agreement with those who hold such beliefs, and even more so to do so when your “partners in peace” refuse to recognize you and vow your destruction.

That, however, is what President Obama asks Israel to do.ⁱⁱⁱ He feels that Israel should take some “risks” for peace. Use the old borders for a start and trust the Palestinians to agree to a fair bargain and a mutually acceptable two state solution. The President is intent on showing America's respect for Islam and the Arab countries, even though those nations don't trust the United States and would be happy to see our country's power and culture crushed. The contention is often made that you must negotiate and conclude peace agreements with your enemies, not your friends, but doing so – loving your enemy – is not synonymous with hating and sacrificing your friends.

The world calls for a two state solution in the Middle East, one that would include a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem. Indeed, from the perspective of international powers bent on accommodation of the Palestinians, division of Jerusalem – Ir Shalom, the City of Peace – makes sense – at least the public demand for it. I wonder, however, how successful the world's experience has been with divided cities. My recollection of places like Berlin, and of Jerusalem during the time of its division suggests that this is a sure road to failure. And has there ever been a city that was the capital of two different – and warring – nations?^iv If so, how did that work out? We are cautioned to remember history, and not to repeat its mistakes. The Middle East is no place to experiment, especially in the name of cynical politics.

There are those who would eliminate Israel; many who deny the occurrence of the Holocaust; and some who disingenuously deny any relationship between the Jews and Jerusalem (or "Palestine"). There are those who hold the Jews (Israel) responsible for all the problems in the Middle East, or even the world. Some claim anti-Zionism is not the same as anti-Semitism. That's true in theory, but most "anti-Zionists" use that label as a justification for anti-Semitism.

The upcoming UN debate over the recognition of Palestinian and the deligitimization of Israel, along with the upcoming Durban clone^v are certain to attract the attention of the media and, through them, the public. As to whether the questions raised are themselves legitimate, there can be much debate. The real issue, however, is why there is so little attention paid to the crimes perpetrated by the various Arab States – to their racism, sexism, homophobia, corruption, and lack of regard for human rights.^vi There is no attention to the issue of whether, for example, Syria should exist. Like Israel it is a creation of an international body, but unlike Israel it has no historical basis. And whether or not there is a historical basis for a particular state, there is at least as much reason to question some of its neighbors as Israel itself. But there is a dearth of critical thinking and discussion by other countries; no criticism of those neighbors as the real causes of unrest in the area. Only the rush to blame it all on Israel.

And that is basis for the current situation. Sadly, rather than take a firm stand based on America's principles, President Obama is using his “bully pulpit” to give the appearance of strength as he demonstrates his weakness. Like so many other nations he is yielding to the demands of the region's tyrannies. Perhaps he views it as being in America's interests. Perhaps he considers it good politics. But, as the saying goes, it's bad policy. It's a sure recipe for the distrust of any nation with which we have a treaty.

Presidential politics can take a terrible toll.

 

i     That and the current turmoil in the Middle East. The turmoil, in many nations, demonstrates that the causative problems have nothing to do with Israel – only to the difficulties in those countries themselves. All of the accusations that Zionism is responsible for all their problems was meant to distract their own citizens from the tyrannies that controlled them and the deplorable conditions which they had to suffer.

ii    They are described as the 1967 borders to make them sound more contemporary and to suggest that the 1967 War is the source of all the current disagreements.

iii    Israel is certain to mistrust the Arab nations and anticipate violation of any agreement with them. But it is sad that she cannot rely on a commitment of the United States. In 2004 President Bush stated that the truce lines now being promoted could not serve as the basis for any peace negotiations. If America renounces her commitment not to use “the armistice lines of 1949” as a basis for such negotiations – a position supported by then Senator Hillary Clinton – how can Israel rely on any other nation to honor any promises to her? After all, if the United States, a “friend,” doesn't have to live up to commitments to Israel, why should anyone else. And, for that matter, why should anyone live up to any commitments to the United States?

iv    A period when the destruction of synagogues may have been important, but none of the Arab powers gave any thought to the city as capital of a Palestinian state. In fact, no interest was even displayed in the establishment of a Palestinian state when the Arabs held large parts of the country, including much of Jerusalem. Only when Israel ruled the area did they discover that there was a Palestinian people and a land they should rule.

v     Scheduled for September 22, 2011 in New York. It's nominally a conference on “racism” but, like the UN in general, it seems to have as its main goal the discrediting of Israel.

vi    These are usually passed off as internal affairs which should be of no concern to “outsiders.” Israel, on the other hand, …

Sex And The Single Cell

 

It all started with a single cell.ⁱ Life, I mean. And then, after a long time,ⁱⁱ we reached our (sub) species – Homo sapiens (sapiens).

The earliest cells were sexless. They were all pretty much the same. But as the cells divided so did the species, and ultimately there developed a system of reproduction based upon two different “types” within each species – a “male” and a “female.” Usually in the animal kingdom, but certainly not invariably, the two types occurred in different individuals. That's the way it is in humans, and weⁱⁱⁱ are grateful for it. Men are different from women. Oh! You noticed. Anyway, vive la différence!

Along the way patterns developed. The females bore the young and cared for them.^iv The males, who begot those young, generally hunted and provided sustenance for all. They usually retained the ability to father longer than the females retained their fertility, but the females typically outlived the males. And that's the way it is now. It's generally accepted, and “the way things are” among most species. It's the unquestioned pattern among lions, elephants, mice, and sheep, and many others. Only among humans is there a questioning of these roles. We're the only species that denigrates that difference^v and in which significant numbers of our members seek to possess the attributes of the other type. And in many ways^vi that's difficult or impossible. Because of evolution.

Men and women are different in terms of visible anatomy, and it's becoming clearer and clearer that we're wired differently. We have different hormonal systems, temperaments, emotions, and interests. Because we're wired differently, we think and act differently. Clearly, whatever the contribution of nurture and culture, there is a major component of difference that can be attributed to nature.^vii

But evolution occurs in many ways. While it's not completely clear how we got to this point, women now get more undergraduate and graduate degrees than men, they have higher salaries in some^viii age categories, they control most of consumer spending, and they've changed the nature of education. The classroom used to be faulted for teaching boys at the expense of girls, but it seems to be the other way now. And there's been a change in the language.^ix “He” used to be the default pronoun, but nowadays “they,”^x and often “she,” are finding their way into print and speech more and more often.^xi And, for a variety of reasons, distinctions between the sexes^xii are being played down or eliminated. Among others, unisex clothing, toilets, and hair-care establishments are common, and many schools and jobs that formerly were identified with one sex or the other are now “personed” equally, or now have more members of the group that once either shunned the positions or were shunned by them. Unisex has replaced unicell (with a long stop for two sexes along the way). In part this may be attributed to a changing of qualifications for membership which may or may not be appropriate. However other causes can be assumed as well. Some kind of evolution seems to be responsible for many of the changes. If that evolution is social or political, it is evolution nonetheless. Perhaps it represents the victory of brains over brawn, though to characterize the possessors of either of those qualities would be frowned upon in our current society.^xiii

Not that the changes are bad. There's no denying that males have used physical means to maintain their position in society and that females have been limited by their role as the bearers of children. But there are many, both men and women, who favor this situation – this division of responsibilities. Many men are flustered by competition for jobs by women, and many women resent the pressure to be childless or to have their husbands or other surrogates rear their children. To a great degree, evolution has conditioned us to be like our ancestors in this regard, whether we are speaking of humans or of humanity's predecessors.

One feature of the change cannot be explained adequately by evolution, however. That is the apparent increase in identification with a gender other than that determined biologically. It's not clear if this is a real change or reflects the greater visibility of those who would have been unknown in the past. The emergence of preferences for relationships between members of the same sex should not be discouraged, but it is obvious that such “matings” will not be reproductive ones.^xiv They will not contribute to survival of the species. ^xv

And language is an issue here as well as it is in other contexts. I used to view “marriage” in a particular way, and I think it's useful to retain the term with its traditional meaning. I'd rather use “union” or some other term for the coupling of individuals of the same sex. Perhaps a term can be invented to suit that purpose and make it unnecessary to blur the distinctions between the different forms of pairing. But I suspect that blurring is the aim, and my suggestion will not be acceptable to many. Moreover I can understand the need for “partner” when dealing with same-sex unions,^xvi but I am unable to comprehend the trend for its use between married couples of opposite sexes. In the past “husband” and “wife” served this function pretty well. Anyway, language evolves, and its changes, as well as the behavioral ones, are realities.

In any event, from my perspective, a few guidelines for the new society are in order. First of all, opportunities and rewards for men and women^xvii should be equal, but they should not be made to be equal. If there are valid reasons for particular requirements – such as anatomic or physiological reasons – they should not be changed, simply because a change is possible. If, for example, a certain amount of strength or intelligence is needed for a particular job, that requirement should not be eased in the service of “equality.”^xviii It is obvious that the setting of requirements will be a problem, and the choice of the those who set the rules will be a difficult issue. But that should not deter us from trying.

Choice should be available to all, in the form of contraceptives for those who want, and in the acceptance of “life-styles” of every conceivable^xix kind – choice is certainly preferable to pressure – however

People should not be forced into associations with those with whom they may feel uncomfortable, nor should they be belittled for their feelings.^xx

Individuals and families should be able to choose a “traditional” life or any other form without worrying about pressure from those who criticize their choice.^xxi A single “acceptable” option – with any other considered betrayal – removes any possibility of free will. One choice is no choice.

In order to increase the likelihood of equality, boys and girls should be taught separately, in settings and with techniques fitted to their style of learning. Neither should be held back because the methods are not suitable.

These guidelines would be a start. Women will still live longer than men and they will be healthier (and should have pension benefits and insurance costs which recognize these differences) but the changes required by a limiting society would be minimized. People want different things and the choice should be theirs, with no society norms that must be followed – assuming there is no harm to others.^xxii

But being equal is not the same as being identical. It's nice^xxiii to have men and women. The system seems to work, and it's a lot of fun.

Next episode “Sez Who?” – It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

 

i     At least for those who accept the idea of evolution. If you believe otherwise you will probably not agree, but that dispute is for another time.

ii    I won't involve myself in arguments about the precise number of years, but it's been a while.

iii    At least most of us.

iv     That's not true of the entire animal kingdom, but it's the rule among mammals.

v    It's interesting that we deny the differences of men and women while glorying in “multiculturalism” and magnifying the differences among other groups – sometimes inventing characteristics and distinctions for them which improve their image in comparison to our own.

vi    But not all.

vii   According to the (“feminist”) dogma, the differences between the sexes are primarily based on what we are taught – nurture – as opposed to nature. After all, more than 98% of the genes of the two sexes are the same. Of course more than 98% of a woman's genes are the same as those of a female chimpanzee, but that is a distraction from the “truth” of the nurture hypothesis.

viii   A minority to be sure.

ix    At least in English. I don't know what changes, if any, have occurred in other tongues.

x     My favorite example is the new expression, “To each their own.”

xi    One of my favorite expressions is “To each, their own.”

xii    We now call them “genders,” which is, itself, a change in the language.

xiii    Indeed, the carriers of culture, movies, television, and the like, make a point of putting women in roles intended to demonstrate their power – physical and professional.

xiv    Adoption is an option for these couples, but the reproduction is usually done by others. Even artificial insemination requires people of opposite sexes.

xv    The argument can be made that childless unions are preferable to world overpopulation and abortion, and that as such they have evolutionary value. The existence of homosexuality prior to such overpopulation weakens this argument.

xvi    And in situations where unmarried people are living together.

xvii    Whatever their sexual orientation.

xviii   I recall one production of “On The Town” in which a Japanese man had the role of guard at an American naval port during World War II. It was a victory of equal opportunity, race-blind casting and equality over reality.

xix    That's probably a bad word to choose.

xx    “Hate speech” is just as deplorable when aimed at those who are accused of using it. Sadly, we live in an age when freedom of speech is subject to political review and approval given only to those who say the “right” things and use the right euphemisms.

xxi    See previous note. Because freedom of speech allows people to say almost anything, it is inevitable that one group will fault the ways of another. There's no stopping that. But we must all realize that we can and should pursue our own way of life irrespective of those criticisms. Those who feel and express them are the ones with the problem.

xxii    Obviously some rules are necessary. Every society must set limits on the actions of its members. Murder and molestation, for example, must be addressed.

xxiii   In my view.

"God, save our flight!" -- The Religion Of Atheism

 

Believe it or not, atheism is a religion.

While its primary dogma states that there is no G-d, it's a structured belief system with countless followers who accept its teachings and who spread them as diligently as they can. In fact, they sometimes spread them too diligently.

I have no interest in belittling our Constitution's First Amendment. Thank G-d we're all free to believe what we choose and to speak of our beliefs to anyone. We are free to evangelize – to involve others in our faith if they choose to accept it. In fact, most religions encourage others to join them – to observe the ritualsⁱ that they do. And atheists are certainly free to spread their Gospel along with the others.

Most religions try to attract other worshipers by means of example, provision of services,ⁱⁱ or by non-threatening evangelism. But not all. Islam, for example, encouraged belief by the use of the sword.ⁱⁱⁱ It wasn't a subtle or psychologically sophisticated way, but it brought them millions of adherents. Atheists, too, are anything but subtle. Their sword, however, is the word, the insult, the denigration they apply to anyone who may believe in a divinity. I suspect that most atheists are equal-opportunity maligners, who have as little regard for Eastern as Western religions – for those who sacrifice others and for those who make sacrifices for others.

They are religious fanatics. They're not the only ones, but too many of them are fanatics.

I know it's inappropriate and incorrect to characterize a group based on the actions of a few of its members, however the confidence expressed by some atheists, and the deprecation of the beliefs of others – the “in your face” attitude – of too many of its members, is the principal face presented to the public, and it is hard to overlook. I like to believe that my religion is the most valid, but I believe that to be the case for me, not necessarily for others.

Too many atheists, however, express the view that anyone who sees things differently from them is a fool who is being hoodwinked by purveyors of the opium of the masses. From their perspective, anyone who believes in G-d is a gullible simpleton who has not seen the light. And, like it or not, they will enlighten us.

Yesterday I saw a story on my computer Home Page entitled: “Cathay Pacific Airbus 330 makes emergency landing in Singapore.” It told of the crisis on board an Airbus when one of the engines failed and the pilot was forced to take unanticipated action. The sub-headline read “'God, save our flight! Give us your protection!' passengers pray.” And as is the case more and more with internet news, there was room provided for comment. While many of the submissions were supportive and expressed gratitude over the safety of passengers and crew, there were many who found the terror of the participants to be a good platform for their religious^iv pronouncements. A typical message: “I'm sure God didn't have anything to do with it. He was too busy not existing.” Whatever beliefs I may have about the subject, it's hard to understand what this writer, and others like him, hoped to accomplish by their mocking.

Here's another example. This billboard was up just before last Christmas, greeting drivers coming into New York City.

I don't celebrate Christmas myself, but I think the confrontational approach can only reflect the insecurity of American Atheists.^v I can't put any other construction on the proposition that everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. That's anything but a unique view, however it usually reflects paranoia and a lack of confidence in one's position.^vi Those who are secure don't need to defend themselves when there is no attack.

They can say whatever they like and wherever they choose. They can spend their money on whatever campaigns they consider worthwhile. But that doesn't add any credibility to their message. Who is right? If they are, they'll never know. And neither will the rest of us. But if they're wrong they'll have to rethink the matter. If that's possible.

 

i     Or non-rituals.

ii     Some may view this as bribery.

iii    I know I'm not supposed to say things like this since some may view it as “hate speech.” All you need to do to confirm what I'm saying, though, is to look in a history book. And you'd better do it quickly. Before they're “corrected” and some of the things we don't wish to teach are removed.

iv    Actually anti-religious. But expressed with the self-assurance of a true believer.

v     I also wonder if they were unreasonable before 1963.

vi    As I noted earlier, there are others whose way it is to evangelize – to educate and attract those with other points of view – but it is far more effective when done without taunting and provoking. Vehemence and fanaticism may prompt fright in the listener, and possibly even fearful agreement, but they do not encourage the confidence of those subjected to them.

They

 

Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden was killed a few days ago by Navy SEALs. It is not a matter of dispute. The government of Pakistan has faulted our government for our action in their country, and al-Qaeda has said it will fight on despite the death of its leader.ⁱ Ismail Haniyeh, head of the Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, told reporters that the group regards bin Laden's death “as a continuation of the American policy based on oppression and the shedding of Muslim and Arab blood.” In a bid to minimize Muslim reaction, and in line with Muslim traditions, bin Laden was buried hours after his death. The burial took place at sea in order to remove the possibility of a terrestrial monument that would be the focus for the congregation of angry militants, and the site of inspiration of further terrorism.

Regrettably there are some who call for the release of photographs of the dead bin Laden. They suggest that he is not dead and that what has happened is another plot to placate those who have called for his end, and a ploy to dispirit his supporters. It is all a conspiracy, and it must be proved with photographs demonstrating that he is dead.

Of course photographs, even if they are demanded now, won't be satisfactory. If produced there will be accusations of doctoring.ⁱⁱ Conspiracy theorists didn't accept photographic and video proof of the moon landing so it's difficult to understand why any documentation offered now would be convincing for them. It will only be viewed as another part of the conspiracy.

Conspiracy theories have always existed, but in recent years they are multiplying.ⁱⁱⁱ The flying saucer that crashed at Roswell was hushed up, the “Elders of Zion” are planning on taking over the world, President Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA (or Mafia or Russians – your choice), the moon landing was faked, the United States or Israel was responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center, the medical profession is hiding the cures to many diseases from us, gasoline prices are raised or lowered to help favored political parties win elections: you've heard these and many more. Like the murder of Princess Di by British intelligence and the cover-up of the fact that Jesus survived the crucifixion. And we all know that Elvis is still alive (as are Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster). Those who create and foster these myths are legion, even if their ideas are illegitimate.

It's difficult to find a single cause for these theories, but some possibilities come to mind. One is the recent emphasis on the warning against trusting authority.^iv More and more people are inclined to doubt everything they hear from anyone with power,^v and eager to believe anything told them about the involvement of some individuals or groups in every controversial subject. For them, every explanation is a cover-up of the involvement of some group, “them,” in that incident. There are evil forces who are imposing their will on the powerless.^vi We have to stick it to them. It's paranoia. So no demonstration of its fallaciousness will be believed. The same evil forces are trying to misdirect those who, like us, seek the truth.

That reality should be obvious to everyone. In fact, everything that deviates from what you want is caused by someone else. You're not responsible for anything. It is always someone else's fault.^vii And, of course, you should sue that person.^viii There is always someone to blame – someone^ix who should be held accountable. And often that “someone” is a corporation or other large organization – like the government, a drug company or an insurance company – that is working to hide some important information to the detriment of everyone else. They are conspiring against all us “little people.”^x And the lawyer so eager to help you isn't looking for any payment unless he can get some money from the conspirator. So why not. It's worth a try. If he's so sure that you have been injured by a conspiracy you should be sure as well.^xi And it's time to pay back the corrupt society in which we live.

What results is a society that always believes the worst, one that trusts no one – especially its own leaders. And mythology sells. It's a sure path to your fifteen minutes. Sadly, there is no solution to the problem. Paranoids will not bury their fears; irrational people will not bow to logic. I'm from Missouri and they haven't proved anything to me. So all we can do is not to take them too seriously. The problem is theirs and we cannot let it become ours.

Next episode: “Sex And The Single Cell” – Plus ça change, plus ça change.

i     A statement from the group included the following: “We will remain … a curse chasing the Americans and their agents, following them outside and inside their countries … their happiness will be turned to sadness … their blood will be mingled with their tears.”

ii    Anyone with a computer can “fix” a photograph. And, of course, anyone with a computer can publicize his theory about how we are all being manipulated.

iii   They're quite common in the United States. I don't know about their frequency in other countries. The Wall Street Journal, though, reports that UFO sightings are becoming more frequent in Asia.

iv    Ideas of this type have always existed but they seem to be more frequent now than in the past.

v    Including their parents and teachers. No. Especially their parents and teachers.

vi    It's them versus us. We may not know who “they” are (that's part of their plan) but we must always be on guard for them. They're out to get us. Whoever they are.

vii   You're good. You could never do anything wrong. It must be someone else. Your mother told you that. It's one of the few things she said that you can believe, even if she didn't believe it. After all, if you did something wrong it would reflect on her.

viii  Your lawyer told you that. He agrees with your mother. How can they both be wrong?

ix    Ideally someone with a lot of money.

x    No one ever raises the issue of the conspiracy of the class action law suit designed to make as much for everyone as possible, irrespective of any loss we may have suffered. We only see greediness and venality in others. They conspire. We exercise our legal rights.

xi   Would your lawyer lie to you?