Truthers v Birthers
This may well start a shit-show. Not looking to, but I realize the potential.
So, I want to establish that it's a piss-poor analogy comparing the "Truther" movement with the "Birther" movement.
Now, some similarities exist, but there are some similarities between Nazis and Buddhists. Some similarities exist among just about any two groups.
So here's why I consider it to be a very poor analogy:
1) The "Truthers" are not strictly from one party. There were libertarian truthers who fell into a Ron Paul Republican party type. It may have been majority D's, but it wasn't an exclusive movement the way that the "Birthers" are. (Anyone care to wager how many Dems doubt Obama's birth certificate?)
2) There is obvious evidence that the attacks of 9/11 helped further the Neocon agenda. From the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq (neither of which stood a chance of happening without a 9/11 type event) there was substantial political gain to be had from a large terrorist attack happening on US soil that came from the middle east.
3) While I am not here to suggest that the "Truthers" are correct, I am here to defend the idea that what happened on 9/11 is substantially more complicated than being born in Hawaii. The complications enable us to be confused as to what happened that day, and confusion breeds suspicion.
I am not a "truther" but I am one who has some confusion over what happened on Sept 11. Building 7 confuses me--as does the curiousness of the BBC reporting on Building 7 collapsing before it did (youtube video here)
Such confusion not withstanding, I am again not here to defend Truthers. I am here to establish that it is a poor analogy when we compare "Truthers" with "Birthers"
I mean, there's only one claim to the Birther movement--Obama was born outside of the US. But there's no confusion or complication on this; we have his birth certificate. End of debate.
So, can we please put that comparison to rest?
So, I want to establish that it's a piss-poor analogy comparing the "Truther" movement with the "Birther" movement.
Now, some similarities exist, but there are some similarities between Nazis and Buddhists. Some similarities exist among just about any two groups.
So here's why I consider it to be a very poor analogy:
1) The "Truthers" are not strictly from one party. There were libertarian truthers who fell into a Ron Paul Republican party type. It may have been majority D's, but it wasn't an exclusive movement the way that the "Birthers" are. (Anyone care to wager how many Dems doubt Obama's birth certificate?)
2) There is obvious evidence that the attacks of 9/11 helped further the Neocon agenda. From the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq (neither of which stood a chance of happening without a 9/11 type event) there was substantial political gain to be had from a large terrorist attack happening on US soil that came from the middle east.
3) While I am not here to suggest that the "Truthers" are correct, I am here to defend the idea that what happened on 9/11 is substantially more complicated than being born in Hawaii. The complications enable us to be confused as to what happened that day, and confusion breeds suspicion.
I am not a "truther" but I am one who has some confusion over what happened on Sept 11. Building 7 confuses me--as does the curiousness of the BBC reporting on Building 7 collapsing before it did (youtube video here)
Such confusion not withstanding, I am again not here to defend Truthers. I am here to establish that it is a poor analogy when we compare "Truthers" with "Birthers"
I mean, there's only one claim to the Birther movement--Obama was born outside of the US. But there's no confusion or complication on this; we have his birth certificate. End of debate.
So, can we please put that comparison to rest?