Lew: When I first read Mr. Weinstein’s piece in The Daily Caller, I was tempted to e-mail him that someone was publishing absurd comments on that website and signing his name to them. I then realized that he intended these remarks!
He accuses me of having “danced around trutherism.” Frankly, I have no idea what “trutherism” is. Being an “ism,” I am inclined to associate it with a belief system, a doctrine, perhaps even a religion. Perhaps, like “environmentalism,” it is a set of beliefs designed to conserve something of value (e.g., the planet). If this is the meaning Mr. Weinstein has in mind, then is “truth” what is to be conserved? Perhaps he has picked up on Mark Twain’s observation that “truth is the most valuable thing we have. Let us economize it.”
On the other hand, if he is promoting a new religion – grounded, perhaps, in Twain’s insight – the question arises: does his new religion allow for dancing? If not, it appears that he may be setting me up for some form of eternal damnation. If so, he need not worry himself: I don’t enjoy dancing at all; it hurts my feet and, quite frankly, I lack the grace to perform the correct steps.
You can see that I am trying my best to give Mr. Weinstein the benefit of any doubts that might make his remarks somewhat sensible. But after conjuring up so many possible explanations, I find myself inescapably drawn to the conclusion that he is not trying to protect truthfulness and its pursuits, but to condemn those of us who seek to practice it! If this is the gravamen of his indictment, then I eagerly plead “guilty” to the charges, and place myself at the mercy of intelligent minds – there must be a few of them left – to pass judgment on me!
What a strange idea Mr. Weinstein proposes, condemning me – along with my co-conspirators at the Ron Paul Peace and Prosperity Institute – for insisting that the causes of events should be sought in evidence-based inquiries, rather than through instantaneous political/media pronouncements! Is the search for truth conducted in an empirical, rational manner now to be regarded as “radical?” By what standard(s), if any, does this scribbler make judgments about occurrences in the real world? Or do such intelligently-based methods of inquiry place too heavy a burden upon his mind?
I have explored this issue more fully – in connection with the Boston bombing – in today’s LRC article.
But be of good cheer, fellow “truthians”: as World War II bomber pilots would attest, “when you experience flak, it means you’re over the target!”1:04 pm on April 24, 2013 Email Butler Shaffer