Should we really give the whole country a pass on reason when it comes to JFK conspiracies? [View all]

[DanTex]

I like to think of liberals and DUers as more rational and evidence-based than the average person. Most of us would scoff at media reports saying that there are "conflicting views on global warming." Yes, there are conflicting views, but there is also evidence, and if you look at in a scientific manner, then one of the views proves to be correct and the other proves to be incorrect.

Who killed JFK is far less important than whether global warming is real, so maybe it's OK to designate this as one area where everyone can release any latent desire to entertain wild and irrational speculation. Still, it's a little disconcerting that a large percentage even of liberals are so willing to give up on reason when the conclusions don't fit their worldview.

Part of it is due to the fact that most people just haven't looked at the facts very carefully (which is fine). The media hasn't exactly helped here, portraying JFK conspiracy theorists as valiant rebels who refuse to drink the official kool-aid (e.g. Oliver Stone). Of the 70% of Americans that don't believe that Oswald alone shot JFK, I suspect most don't know that Oswald's rifle and fingerprints were found at the TSBD, that ballistics matched the bullets to his rifle, that he alone among all TSBD employees fled the scene after the shooting, and that later he shot and killed a police officer who tried to question him (an event with eyewitnesses). How many are aware that the medical examination conclusively determined that both wounds to JFK were from behind, a finding that was unanimously supported by fifteen different pathologists in four different subsequent investigations that reviewed the autopsy evidence? On the other hand, they've all probably heard about "magic bullets" and had the Zapruder film narrated to them by Kevin Costner, as JFK's head snaps "back and to the left".

So there's the excuse of ignorance, although it gets a bit uncomfortably close to "I'm not sure I buy the whole global warming story, I know some scientists say so, but I've also heard about sunspots changing the temperature, and also that it's really water vapor and not CO2..."

And then there's the fact that it's the "official story" that "they" want us to believe. But again, this is uncomfortably close to right-wingers who reject the IPCC climate reports because the IPCC is an "official" scientific body organized by (gasp!) the United Nations.

The author of this highly recced Esquire article proudly proclaims that he "I stopped believing in the Warren Commission even before it was put together". Really? Skepticism and suspicion of those in power are good things, but not when they trump reason. Being extra skeptical of a government inquiry into a politically sensitive event like this is warranted, but not to the point where you ignore all the evidence and simply conclude that the very fact that the Warren Commission is a government commission proves they must be wrong.