Zeitgeist, 911, & the Problems With Discussing Politics

So recently a friend and I had quite a discussion stemming from the film Zeitgeist. This is a transcript of that conversation word for word. Anything altered is indicated with [ ] and does not alter the substance of the conversation.
I will name us A & B.


A: I watched Zeitgeist.

B: Just now?

A: Ya

B: So I don't have to pay taxes anymore.

A: Lol!!

B: What did you think about the 911 stuff?

A: I'm sure some of it is valid. I do believe "they" knew to a certain extent. The controlled explosion is pretty convincing though.

B: With a controlled explosion there is a sound and flash before the building collapses.

A: I don't remember the details. I just remember it was fascinating.

B: I looked up the debunking of that because I thought the same thing.

A: Yeah, unfortunately conspiracy theories usually doom themselves by taking it too far. I do believe our government knew, but I think it was more incompetence than malice. HOWEVER, Cheney got A LOT of what he wanted because of 911. A part of me still thinks there was something more sinister behind it. Kind of like 'Scandal!!' Lol

B: So you were convinced of the controlled explosions of the world trade center buildings but never really did any research into whether the theory that our government blew up these buildings was credible?

A: I wasn't convinced. I said it was convincing. There is a difference. We will never know how much they knew. I don't put anything past human capability. I don't think it needs "research" because I have come to terms with the fact that there are a range of possibilities. The better thing to do would be critically think and analyze without delving into the nuances of conspiracy theories. It's a distraction and makes the conversation less credible. Unfortunately, the further in detail you go, you're likely going to get farther from the truth. I am convinced much of our government knew ahead of time, but it was dismissed either due to lack of intel or the ones with the intel held back crucial info on purpose or by incompetence. Going further down the rabbit hole, I believe, with less certainty, there were only a few who knew beyond the "threat warning" and quite possibly had a direct hand in it.

B: There's a big difference between incompetence and on purpose

A: Either is a possibility. I would rather believe people are dumb instead of evil, but if I had to choose one, I would say it was on purpose. Too many people benefited from it for it to have been an mistake.

B: The movie Zeitgeist has a message that is not invalid but is lost underneath unequivocal dishonesty. The distortions and lies in the movie cross the line between philosophical advocacy and unethical propaganda. Same problems I have with the pit bull debate. Some one who you believe to be on your side is doing more harm than good because he is so obviously and easily dismissed.

A: Yes. Unfortunately that is the way of our society. In order for any message to be heard it has to be...extreme. We have to then filter out the small portions that are worth it. The problem lies in that people who communicate these "messages" are trying to reach/convince as many people as possible. And THAT is the problem. I believe that Socrates and Hobbes were not too far off in that the population as a whole are not thinkers or philosophers and decisions should not be left up to the masses.
Do you realize I could be held without any protection from the constitution just for saying that? Yay Patriot Act!

B: I'm surprised you think the controlled explosion was convincing. It would take a long time maybe a month to equip one tower with enough explosives to being it down all the while avoiding one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet. We are talking about knocking down walls over a prolonged amount of time with heavy security and cameras unable to detect anything. Or all being complicit. Then when a plane hits the tower somehow these explosives do not go off. It actually makes little to no sense if you think about it or look into it for a few minutes.

A: I think it's all possible. Just because at first it may seem improbable, it is only because you think from a rational perspective that is molded by your life experiences. If there is one thing I have learned it's that just because you think something is not in the realm of YOUR perspective, it doesn't mean that the reality is what you deem rational. If there's one thing I'm certain of it's that humans, particularly powerful humans, are capable of anything. I'm not saying I think that's what happened. I'm saying I wouldn't be surprised. I don't know what happened, I just know that a lot of people died and rich people got a WHOLE LOT richer and power has been more concentrated than ever. Is it possible that these people who benefited just seized an opportunity and the whole attack was "organic" so to speak? Yes. Do I in my heart of hearts think that's the case? No. Rich and powerful people have the resources to bring to fruition all their evil desires. The evil that runs through humans is like no other species on this planet. It's intense and gross and when you have the resources, you can make anything happen...including elaborate plans to start wars.

B: I came to my conclusion on whether the towers were intentionally blown up based on looking into both sides and deciding what made sense. I was perfectly willing to believe whatever the evidence said. My perspective on that one issue was arrived at by looking at facts. Evolution and climate change can't be 100% proven either but that doesn't make the opposite or every competing plausibility equally valid. The evidence is also overwhelming that it was a policy decision to go to Iraq. I think Cheney, Bush, and others should be tried for war crimes and be in prison. Thousands of Americans died and Iraq was torn apart due to their lies, propaganda, and fear mongering. But that doesn't give the filmmaker the right to bypass facts. It makes a more interesting movie I guess. Although even he has said he has moved past his 911 theories. I wonder why he hasn't taken the time to revise and edit his mistakes when the movie itself went through several revisions and doing so wouldn't be very time consuming or difficult.

A: I don't get it. You seem disappointed that I didn't follow up the film the way you did. One minute you're saying it would only take a few minutes to realize it's not probable, the next you're saying you did research and read 2 sides to come to your conclusion. In my opinion, it's a waste of time to fiddle through conspiracy theories. It's nevertheless fascinating to see/watch what someone else's opinion is, but for me personally I don't find it necessary to delve into it. That's not even the part of the film I find intriguing! The Jesus is the sun part and the production/industrial revolution/Walmart vs Woolworth part are the ones that were candy to me.

B: Yes I guess I am disappointed you didn't follow up more in the same way people who repeat what they hear on Fox news don't delve deeper. I like to know the source and the agenda and don't like being lied to. I thought the movie was interesting too but they really overplayed the sun and son analogy but the bible wasn't written in English so that's another tidbit of info you might find interesting if you delve deeper.

A: There's a difference if you don't have any kind of emotional investment in the topic. I don't care about attempting to find the truth about 911 because I know I never will...no one will. I personally don't find it important. Why would I delve into a subject that I know is going to lead no where? I don't go around claiming 911 towers were blown up.
I know the bible wasn't written in English. That IS a topic I did delve into. Further, if there's one thing I know about interpreting language is that sometimes there is no equivalent word. I run into that when trying to tell [my partner] what the [show] really said instead of the incorrect, but similar, subtitle.

B: Nobody can ever know the truth about anything but I still think the pursuit of it is worth while. I had a curiosity about whether the towers were blown up purposely after seeing the movie so I'm stuck on that. I am also interested in other aspect on the film. Seeing that the film was made by an art student in New York I'm curious if this was some kind of art project to see how gullible people are or he actually is serious. Since the film uses the same fox news type propaganda it makes more sense to explore his themes elsewhere. For example in the film he says the funding for 911 came from an official in Pakistan. this is found in one source. an Indian newspaper that could likely have a political motive. So then he crosses Bin Laden off the list. This absurd simple logic is catchy. Dianetics was real popular too. If it were a fictional movie I wouldn't care but when you try to influence masses of people with extremism in the same way Cheney and Bush did with the fear mongering I find it morally reprehensible. People can make points without resorting to extremism. Gore make an Inconvenient Truth.

A: Okay so YOU wanted to delve into that particular aspect, I do not. Just as I'm sure you have not "researched" all the other topics [in] the film. If I watch the news and they do a story about Bigfoot, I'm not going to run out and "research" it. I don't know in advance that they're going to do a story about Bigfoot. To me THAT would be gullible. You seem preoccupied with thinking that it's everyone else who are the gullible and irresponsible ones and being okay with lumping me into that category with your not so subtle digs just because YOU don't filter through things without more "proof." I never take things as 100%, even NPR, Al Jazeera, or WSJ, etc. I manage and filter in a way that I deem efficient. To me the 911 bit is like a Bigfoot story, not worth "researching."

B: When I asked you about the 911 part of the movie you said the controlled explosion was convincing to you. It's convincing or is about as likely as Big Foot?

A: But I'm not going to hold it against you if you want to [research]. I'm okay with people liking to discuss in circles, it's just not MY preference. I think you're hung up [on] your anger toward the "news" in general and everyone's willingness to accept it. SCOTUS has already ruled that the news does not have to be truthful...not that they would be even if the ruling had been different; however, if the news doesn't have to be truthful why would films?
It's obviously convincing because you sought to verify it.
It was convincing. Was I convinced? No! I already have my beliefs on that topic and I don't need to attempt to find out more.

B: I guess I don't understand how you think it was convincing and equate it to Big Foot. So you are saying it is convincing in the movie but utterly absurd in real life? If so I guess we agree. It is convincing in the movie and utterly UNconvincing as a plausible scenario in reality. I am not understanding the film maker's intention to try to put forth a convincing scenario of something when the facts obviously point to a different explanation.
Anyway I love you and think you're very intelligent. My comments are solely based on the movie and my opinions about it. No offence intended.

A: Offense taken was minimal and short-lived. My intent was not to cause you anxiety or any negativity.

B: I don't feel any :) I find it interesting to look at the media and why people believe what they do. In a book called Thinking Fast and Slow there is an interesting experiment done by a Nobel prize winning psychologist. He has the subject count basketball passes made by a group in black shorts among a larger group. This requires intense concentration. In the middle of this a man in a gorilla suit spends 8 seconds running through the middle of it all. Not only did a great number of the test subjects miss this but almost all of them were very adamant it never happened.
Do I get a response to my last text on the topic? I thought we might be getting close to an understanding...

A: You wiped me out. I have no response.

THE END.

Would You Prefer Michael Sam Hold A Gun To Your Head?

The Emotional Point:
Michael Sam has beaten the odds. He has had several siblings either die or end up in prison. His Dad is a pathetic loser who can barely muster a compliment for his own son and acknowledges taking another one of his sons to Mexico to lose his virginity to a prostitute. His home life was broken. The statistics were not on his side.

When teammates, classmates, and coaches talk of Michael, they have only kind words. He has been able to succeed despite the tremendous odds against him and he stands before you with no hate in his heart.

He is not a thug, drug addict, murderer,  or animal abuser. He is a decent human being who deserves to be acknowledged for his hard work. Instead of demonizing him for preferences in romantic partners, why not laud him for persevering and being a positive contribution to our society?

What is this society when we have more acceptance for someone being a criminal than gay?

The Logical Point:

Michael Sam was SEC Player of the Year. Only 3 players in the past 10 years have gone undrafted after winning Player of the Year in their respective conferences; one contracted cancer and the other two were middle linebackers. Only ONE other SEC Def Player of the Year was drafted outside of the FIRST TWO ROUNDS; but ALL SEC Def Players of the Year were drafted.

Michael Sam is absolutely good enough to be drafted and he should be. Whether he's good enough to make it in the NFL is anyone's guess. The draft has less to do with the future than it does the past. We all know being drafted doesn't mean you can succeed in the NFL but if he doesn't get drafted, I would absolutely question the reasons behind it. This time the statistics are on his side.

The Problem with the Gray: The subjectivity of child abuse

When is it abuse? In the state of Oregon, it is defined by "...physical abuse as an injury to a child that is not accidental. Most parents do not intend to hurt their children, but abuse is defined by the effect on the child, not the motivation of the parents." They further state, "Although not recommended, spanking is not abuse. However, a spanking which leaves marks or bruises on a child might be abuse. Bruises anywhere on a baby are serious." They also list other types of abuse such as neglect, medical neglect, and mental injury.

Here is the case of my neighbors. They are a family of five; Mom, Dad, and 3 boys ranging from about 6 to 10 years of age. They moved in approximately 2 months ago. Since then, we have heard 'Mom' screaming at her children so often that we have named her 'Mommie Dearest.' From what we can tell, Dad is not around when this happens. She also hits them (or spanks as some prefer to call it) at least a couple of times a week. With my own personal views of "spanking" aside, there was one instance when one of the boys cried out, "please mommy stop hitting me." This broke my heart and twisted at my conscience. I spoke with several people regarding this situation and asked of their opinions. My husband was the first I spoke with. He is a loving, devoted, and sensible man; however, he seemed indifferent toward this situation but agreed that 'Mom' needed help. I then spoke with a mother of 3 daughters; her response was, "it's hard to raise 3 boys." She was hesitant and didn't seem to want to talk about it. I then spoke with a mother of 4 girls and her response was almost as if I was the crazy one and somehow screaming and hitting your children is normal and acceptable.

I grappled with the idea that I was possibly overreacting and that I should let this go and allow people to parent the way they will parent, but I just couldn't do it. I would rather look like a fool and be wrong than to be right and not speak out.

I called the city's family services department and gave them a brief synopsis and they then transferred me to a lady that asked if I wanted to report child abuse. I slowed her down and asked her what my options were. I told her the situation and said I truly believe this family, particularly 'Mom,' needs help; either anger management, family therapy, or parenting classes. She then proceeded to tell me the most mind boggling things. One, spanking is not child abuse unless there are bruises (which I knew). She asked me if they had bruises. I informed her that there was no way for me to find out and that's why I was calling. She continued to tell me that screaming isn't abuse either and "it's sad" but just because someone has different beliefs than I do, it's not abuse. I continued to inform her that the screaming is not within reasonable standards; 'Mom' has a lot of anger behind her screaming. The lady on the phone then said, "maybe that's just her face, maybe she just looks angry." WHAT? I reiterated that I HEAR her; that I can't see her while she's screaming. Finally she said that if I hear her hitting her children, to call 911 and the police officers will do a welfare check. This to me is excessive. What the state of Oregon is saying is that there are no resources for the middle ground. It's complete lunacy that I'm the one that has to verify the abuse and check for bruises. I don't even know them, how am I supposed to check their bodies for bruises? Not only am I not a trained social worker, I am not in a position to determine whether what is happening qualifies as abuse. I don't know if it is or isn't (legally), that is why I attempted to call the authorities to get THEM to determine that as they are trained to do; but their simple answer was, "we can't." In the end, at least in the state of Oregon, child abuse is only important if it is extreme and obvious.

It's easy to find posters, quotes, phrases, and statistics, like the one above, to show that verbal abuse is abuse and should not be tolerated. Unfortunately, in my most recent experience, I wonder whether it's all just a marketing scheme to a process that never existed.

The day after I made that phone call, I read in the news that Elizabeth Escalona was sentenced to 99 years in prison. She is 23 years old and has 5 children. She brutally beat her toddler, Jocelyn, into a coma. Jocelyn had been kicked, bitten, hit with a various objects, her hair pulled out, and dragged by her feet before her hands were super glued to a wall. Jocelyn had a broken rib, bleeding in her brain, and skin torn off from her hands.

Obviously these two situations greatly differ in severity, but what stands out to me is that Elizabeth herself was raised in an unstable and abusive home. My neighbor's boys will be adults in less than 10 years. They will create their own families. It is detrimentally shortsighted to only address the severe cases. To offer no resources for situations in the gray areas of abuse will only lead to more abuse. On one hand, I can hear the budget-minded folks talking about how much more it will cost. But again, I urge you to look at the long term effects; not just in budget but in the overall improvement of our society. It simply makes sense to address these situations before they become severe.

I am not done here. I will look for other resources and update this situation in the near future.

http://www.oregon.gov/dhs/children/pages/abuse/abuse_neglect.aspx

UPDATE:
I looked into further resources and they all referred me back to the same office that told me they can't do anything.
"Mom" became slightly hostile toward me for something unrelated. She stalked my dog and I making sure my dog didn't poop in a particular area. I did not approach her or respond because I know she has anger issues. We have since moved away from the area and have no further knowledge of their status. At this point it seems the only thing I can do is hope those kids turn out decently.

Putting Abortion In Its Place: A reflection of man

Let's discuss the possible fallout to outlawing abortion and whether we're focusing on the wrong issue.

If we take the "Freakonomics" approach, a dramatic decrease in crime happened 20 years after Roe v Wade; indicating that most people who get abortions are low income, under-educated girls. Continuing on this assertion, if abortion is outlawed, we can deduce that government spending will spike as a result of increased social welfare programs, emergency medical situations (botched abortions), and increased crime, etc. However, many supporters of criminalizing abortion are also the supporters of cutting social welfare programs. I would like to hear more substance regarding solutions to the consequences of criminalizing abortion. As of this moment, many discussions ignore these aspects and turn into an argument of emotions rather than constructive dialogue to address a problem.

Another aspect that I don't hear very often is the responsibilities of the other half of the equation. Women don't get pregnant by themselves. An obvious flaw in our society is the construct of man. Herein lies the source of many of our societal problems, yet we seem to be afraid to discuss it. The way in which our society raises our males is so focused but curiously ignored. We needn't look far to see the statistics upon statistics that clearly prove there is a problem at hand. Male aggression, dominance, narcissism, and entitlement are the roots that represent the bulk of our societal problems. The hindrance of this discussion is that the opposition quickly turns it into accusations of male-bashing; again because males become emotional and aggressive when they deem they are being threatened. Just as with an addict's intervention, you need to face what you have been avoiding.

Communities, religious institutions, politics, and the arts are not focusing enough on the responsibilities of men and their behavior. Instead, most aspects of our society seem to keep their domineering mentality to disproportionately blame females. For men, I suspect this is a natural psychological reaction to avoid having to reflect upon the actions and consequences of themselves. For women, I suspect it is a fear of further vilification. Regardless, I proclaim that once men become better members of society, abortions will naturally decrease. To deny abortions will only serve to continue this negative cycle.

Finally, I respect the view that life begins at conception and in a perfect world, there would never be a need for a single abortion. However, abortion needs to be addressed comprehensively and in a manner that takes into account all views of conception. To treat the act singularly will exacerbate the over-arching socio-economic & gender suppression problems we have in our society. But in the end, I posit that abortion is not the problem but a consequence of a problem.