Parish
Black's Bully Pulpit
RECEIVED Fri., July 6, 2007
Dear Editor,
Louis Black has used the last three “Page Two” editorials [June 22, June 29, July 6] as a bully pulpit to have the (last definitive word) on the loosely organized conspiracy movement.
Just before Black printed that all conspiracists believe 1) they know everything, 2) no one else knows anything, and 3) everyone who is skeptical of a one-world-government plot is complicit or a co-conspirator – all of which are false on their faces because of the pervasive use of absolutes (but we are expected to assume Black is using sarcasm and is not intending to be literal) – I wrote him that I hope he is right, and I am full of it.
No one in his or her right mind would want for 9/11 to be an inside job (which is not to say no one who subscribes to the idea that there is a sinister federal government plot suffers from paranoid schizophrenia).
Neither has Black ever remotely stated that if he is mistaken or has misspoken on one point about an inside job or the motivation of conspiracists in general that 1) he wanted to be enlightened or 2) would recant.
The conspiracy movement is large enough and susceptible to enough misinformation that the honorable and professional thing for Black to do would be to establish an ongoing formal debate between the most knowledgeable individuals on both sides of the issue, the conspiracists being represented by a person or group for whom there is a consensus.
Finally, although today (July 6) a federal appeals court in Cincinnati ruled against the league of liberals who sued the National Security Agency on wiretapping practices, Black deserves our appreciation for being among those bringing that lawsuit, as well as for providing this format, such as it is, where these arguments can be exercised.
Louis Black has used the last three “Page Two” editorials [June 22, June 29, July 6] as a bully pulpit to have the (last definitive word) on the loosely organized conspiracy movement.
Just before Black printed that all conspiracists believe 1) they know everything, 2) no one else knows anything, and 3) everyone who is skeptical of a one-world-government plot is complicit or a co-conspirator – all of which are false on their faces because of the pervasive use of absolutes (but we are expected to assume Black is using sarcasm and is not intending to be literal) – I wrote him that I hope he is right, and I am full of it.
No one in his or her right mind would want for 9/11 to be an inside job (which is not to say no one who subscribes to the idea that there is a sinister federal government plot suffers from paranoid schizophrenia).
Neither has Black ever remotely stated that if he is mistaken or has misspoken on one point about an inside job or the motivation of conspiracists in general that 1) he wanted to be enlightened or 2) would recant.
The conspiracy movement is large enough and susceptible to enough misinformation that the honorable and professional thing for Black to do would be to establish an ongoing formal debate between the most knowledgeable individuals on both sides of the issue, the conspiracists being represented by a person or group for whom there is a consensus.
Finally, although today (July 6) a federal appeals court in Cincinnati ruled against the league of liberals who sued the National Security Agency on wiretapping practices, Black deserves our appreciation for being among those bringing that lawsuit, as well as for providing this format, such as it is, where these arguments can be exercised.
Sincerely,
Kenney C. Kennedy
Kenney C. Kennedy
[Louis Black replies: Mr. Kennedy writes that I use my "Page Two" column "as a bully pulpit to have the (last definitive word)." It may be a bully pulpit, but it is not, by any means, the last or definitive word. There is a lively online discussion about 9/11 going on in the Chronicle forums. In the issue, we print most of the 9/11 letters we get in "Postmarks." Finally, I do not write with nor believe the idea that readers trust what I say or follow it blindly. As with everything in this paper, I'm guessing that there is a wide range of reactions from contempt to disagreement to enjoyment, none of them mutually exclusive. The only ones I don't think read us are those who like to think in lockstep, are only looking to have their opinions confirmed, and believe every word they read.]
