Two cents on the Spitzer situation

While I’ve intentionally avoided having an opinion on recent goings on in the life of now ex-governor Spitzer, largely owing to my decidedly unamerican opinion that not only is it none of my business, it’s not any of yours either, there are few things I enjoy more than watching a good conspiracy theory pecking its way out of its shell.

First, a word on the term conspiracy theory which, for better or worse, carries a certain amout of baggage. I use it to denote a genre: a narrative style which attempts to build a cognitve connection between things that, at least at a cursory glance, are unconnected. Conspiracy theorists tend to get a bad rap mostly on account of using faulty (or rather, inductive) logic. Separate rant available on request for anyone unclear on the the shortcomings of inductive logic relative to its Eagle Scout older brother, deductive logic. Anyhoo, as with other upstanding genres including police dramas and musical comedies, conspiracy theories 1) may be factual, 2) may include facts to add an air of authenticity, or 3) may be the completely fictional musings of their fabricator.

Given that, Greg Palast makes a compelling case for Gov. Spitzer being calculatedly and strategically removed as an obstacle to the folks cashing in on the wreckage of the housing market. Specifics involve a $200 billion Fed bailout to banks issuing “mortgage-backed junk bonds”, shady sub-prime home loan policies by “predatory enablers in the investment banking community” enabled by the current administration, and opposition by a now ex-governor received like the pointy end of a brittle stick.

Which, true to the conspiracy theory genre, may be factual, based on fact, or the crazy ramblings of some New York Times best-selling author and Air America regular. You know how crazy those Democrats can be, what with their environmental crises and cockamamie plans for so-called ‘universal’ health coverage. But as was the case with the story below about clean up spilled bees, I’m aware of not knowing something, and that something is this: how exactly did they get Spitzer?


4 Responses to “Two cents on the Spitzer situation”

  1. The conspiracy in this seems much more of something happening entirely by coincidence. Reading Palast’s article indicates that any of his motivations are purely from a political standing, entirely in line with similar rants by anyone at Foxnews, MSNBC, etc. The point of any of these insinuations is in the end only to get them aired: a sufficient portion of the population will assume there is some small kernel of validity in the insinuation, and will then assume that the kernel can extend to a whole bag of buttery popcorn goodness.

    I was much more interested in a conspiracy reported on the Bad Astronomy Blog today, describing that there is a vocal population that things the Apollo missions were faked. Absolutely amazing. Although I can mentally visualize Palast’s motivations in purporting his Spitzer conspiracy (politics as usual), I cannot for the life of me figure out why someone would think that faking the Moon landings would be a reasonable hypothesis.

  2. I, for one, am still not convinced there even really *is* a moon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: