I spoke to an acquaintance (not a friend- I don't know what it would do to me to learn that someone I liked and trusted was this big a moonbat) recently who is a "truther", one of those who believes that 911 was a Bush administration conspiracy. He thought that as I had written against the conspiracy nuts, I should, in the interest of fairness, I should adress his side. He challenged me to link to the movie "Loose Change", the "documentary" that "connects the dots" and "conclusively proves" that the towers were brought down by demolition charges.
I've decided to do them one better, by linking to the documentary Screw Loose Change . This contains every word, every image of the original, without alteration- but adds the answers to all their charges, half truths, and outright lies. It's long, I warn you; it takes longer to give explanations than merely make accusations. But it's well worth the time viewing.
Comments are on, but don't give me any conspiracy stuff unless you've watched Screw Loose Change.
5 comments:
Thanks for posting this. I watched for about 8 min before I cut it off. It's nice to know this is here as a resource if I ever take a notion to debate a Truther. But I'm not planning to, not this week anyways.
I don't know what it would do to me to learn that someone I liked and trusted was this big a moonbat.
I've greatly enjoyed some of Rev. Davidson Loehr's writings. and I like the man's ministry. So I was taken aback by his Truther stance. He has spoken cogently about the problems with substituting politics for religion in our UU pulpits. So how come he preaches 'Bush lied, people died!' sermons?
Is Loehr the acquaintance in your post?
No, he is not, although from some of his other essays, I'm not really surprized to learn that he is a truther moonbat. Every point he brings up in the referenced essay of the actual event, and most of the political motivations leading up to it are thoroughly rebuted in SLC- but as most of them are foolish on their face, it's hard to understand how an educated man can fall for it.
My guess is the he falls for this stuff because he is an extreme misanthrope in the first place- nearly all of his work reeks with contempt for his fellow man, and is full of his belief that only a few superior intellects like himself among the great unwashed masses can see the true big picture. I've taken on a few of his essays in the past, here for example, but as I said, everything of importance that he says in the referenced article is already rebuted in Screw Loose Change.
*sigh* There are days when it is harder to remain UU than others.
You'll be interested in this review of Todd Gitlin's book Intellectuals and the Flag.
This quote I suspect sums up Rev Loehr,
...a narcissistic retreat into self-proclaimed "marginality," an obsession with ever more minute forms of identity politics and the infinite "problematizing" of "truth," a reflexive opposition to America and the West, and an immurement in "theories" whose radicalism is so pure that they never quite touch down to earth—follies all underwritten and protected by the perquisites and comforts of academia.
Substitute the Church for academia in Rev L's case?
Yeah. He reminds me of the punchline to an old Doonesbury strip:"Of course he cares about the poor- that's how he can avoid being one of them."
Post a Comment