I am really worried about the Senate . . .

. . . in 2008. Republicans have 21 seats to defend, while the Democrats have only 12. This year the GOP actually had fewer seats than the Democrats to defend. Plus, there are a number of potential retirements in that list . . .

What, too early to start talking about 2008? OK, I promise not to mention it again until . . . tomorrow.

Just trying to lighten the mood a little today . . .

Gadfly's crystal ball

Well, it's finally here. Months of vitriol behind us, billions of dollars spent. The polls open in a few short hours, and by this time tomorrow we should - aside from potential recounts and litigation - know roughly how it will all turn out.

Are you ready? Have you read what some of the experts predict? Do you know how you're going to track the results as they come in? Have you filled out your bracket? Do you know what the fallout is going to be depending on the results?

Well, for what it is worth (which isn't much), I just went through all the Senate races and the 50 or so most competitive House races to see how I think they will turn out. In the Senate, I see the Republicans losing 3 seats, leaving them at 52. This mean they would both retain the majority, as well as avoid any danger of Chafee pulling a Jeffords and flipping control by switching parties (although I currently have him in my loss category anyway).

In the House, I have the GOP losing 15 seats, putting them at 217. Yikes. I swear, I didn't plan it that way, it was just what the piles added up to after I finished sorting them. By the way, that is with me predicting the Republicans will lose two of their three incumbents in Connecticut. Holding all three (as we discussed here and here) would keep the House GOP. Should the House actually wind up 218-217 Democratic, all bets are off. I'll put off speculating about the consequences of that until we see if that happens. Needless to say, the House could break either way.

If the Republicans do lose 3 and 15, what will that mean? Well, if you look back through history, Presidents in their sixth year average something like 29-35 seats lost in the House. You don't see any mention of that kind of historical context in this article by the Times today, but be sure to keep it mind. A loss of 20 seats, say, would actually mean a historical out performance by the Republicans, not that it will be reported that way should it happen.

There will be plenty of time for analysis later. In the meantime, don't forget to vote.

"You can't get much more concealed than that"

I could offer a bunch of tasteless jokes, but instead I'll simply link to what has to be one of the funniest stories of the day (Hat tip: Althouse):

Naked man arrested for concealed weapon

What if the GOP retains control?

Stanley Kurtz has given the topic some thought:

"No doubt, there are those who will dismiss all this as implausible scare-mongering. Profanity at liberal political websites, Democrats rooting for America to lose a war, the end of open and fair exchange on America’s college campuses, efforts to stop military recruitment, suicidal infighting over foreign policy in the party of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman: I admit that it all sounds implausible. It certainly bears little resemblance to the America that once was. Nonetheless, I greatly fear that a last-minute Republican victory could usher in some or all of these consequences. So before you push that lever, think long and hard about the dangers of a Republican win."

On a more serious note, there are some people with real stakes in this election who seem to think it matters quite a bit. Of course, these are the same people that I hear from one of our Senators (as well as some editorial writers) aren't always the brightest bulbs:

"...People in the US who want to support the troops, who believe we are engaged in a war, and who recognize the long term consequences of failure need to look past all other issues and vote Republican. Democrats have no policy and can not be trusted. But, even worse, they display no apparent understanding of the dangers to our western civilization presented by the enemy. Their actions since 2001 indicate they are willing to sacrifice the safety and integrity of the USA in the future for short term political gains today.

Ironically, I say this, not as a Republican - (I am Libertarian) - but as a person who recognizes that islamicist fundamentalism is the single greatest threat to our western society in the modern era. I say this as an atheist. I say this as someone who is apalled by the anti-science bias of the Republican party. I say this as someone who doesn't give 2 shits about abortion, suppressing gay-rights, or activist judges. So, as you can tell, the majority of Republican issues are anathema to me, and I still fervently hope they retain control of the Govt..."

[ADDED: Read this article, too.]

Wait, some people think you should vote for the Republicans even of you disagree with them on some issues? Somebody tell Sullivan, assuming he's not still rereading his book.

Journalism lessons from Ireland

Another podcast from Glenn and Helen, this time speaking with some Irish journalists who are here to cover the midterm elections. Money quote:

"I think growing up in Europe, or anywhere in the world, the United States is kind of this big, blank, one-dimensional surface on which you can actually project all of your fears and your dreams. And you can create your own United States because you'll always find a United States to reflect the reality that you believe in.

And part of the problem I think as a journalist - I was here for six years as our Washington correspondent - I always found that the kind of dirty secret among Washington correspondents for foreign media was, you know, you could please with the cliches. You'll always get an applause line, you know, if you get a fat, gun-toting, bible-thumping American, that kind of ascribes to what we've always been brought up to believe in.

The purpose of this trip is to show that there is a nuance, and a subtly, sometimes, even in places we don't expect to see it."

Sounds like many US journalists are apparently trained in the classical, European model of journalism. Of course, that may no longer be working out quite as well as it has in the past.

Teflon John

Save for maybe comptroller, make no mistake about how bad the NY state-wide races are going to be for the GOP. One obvious way to tell? Finger pointing in the New York Times about the losses even before the polls open:

"Anticipating historic political losses in New York tomorrow, state Republican leaders are lashing out at the national party in Washington, saying it has exploited New York donors and blown opportunities against a prime target, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Well, isn't that helpful? There are going to be a lot of Republican operatives in this state looking for jobs pretty soon, and it seems some want to get a head start on "framing the issues." Of course, it's not the locals' fault; it's national's:

"'The national party comes into New York, does significant fund-raising here, and then there’s very little in the way of national support for statewide races,' Mr. Faso said. 'It’s disappointing, and a serious mistake in terms of party building.' . . . While New York Republicans are used to giving more to Washington than they get back, they say they are particularly aggrieved this year."

Apparently, political giving is some sort of model of federal pork barrel spending. Pay a bunch to the center, but make sure some crumbs make it back to the local hacks. As a donor, let me assure you that I want the money given to national committees, organizations, etc. to go to the places it will be most effective, not where people feel put out.

At a more basic level, realize this: New York is a very rich area for political donations to both parties. The article reports that New Yorkers have donated $152 million this cycle. If the people closest to the local races are apparently unmoved to give, why should the national groups do so in what appears to be lost races?

I reserve, though, special disdain for our Senate candidate, John Spencer, with whom you may remember I've already exhibited some displeasure:

"'They blew the Hillary race, and now Hillary has a ton of i.o.u.s from Democrats nationwide for when she runs for president,' said Mr. Spencer, who is trailing Senator Clinton by more than 30 percentage points in most public polls."

Pardon my language, but I've got to say, that takes balls. "They blew the Hillary race." They? Give me a break.

Through September 30th, John Spencer raised $4.7 million for his run. Clinton raised $37.9 million. He has never shown momentum in any of the polls. In, you know, the real world, this type of drubbing might be thought to reflect on the candidate or the race he ran. In this bizzarro world, however, it becomes the fault of others:

"Mrs. Clinton has had nary a worry this fall, thanks to a poorly financed and politically lackluster campaign by Mr. Spencer, who said he was counting on Washington support and money to keep her on the ropes. Now Mrs. Clinton is even more formidably positioned for a possible presidential run in 2008, he said.

'I think national Republicans were afraid that if John Spencer took off as a candidate, it would divert millions of dollars into New York against Senator Clinton, whereas they wanted to spend the money elsewhere,' said John McLaughlin, Mr. Spencer’s senior strategist."

Why should Spencer have been counting on national support? Are there not enough Republican donors around here? Couldn't they tell if he was an investment worth making?

Mr. McLaughlin is right about something. National Republicans did want to spend the money elsewhere, namely where they could win. It was up to Spencer and his campaign to show them that New York was one of those places. They failed quite miserably to do so.

Well done, gentlemen. Well done.

Sunday night hyperbole (non-political)

Al Michaels just tossed out this gem right before the half of tonight's New England-Indianapolis game, in reference to Peyton Manning and Tom Brady:

"A couple of artists at work. You know, this is kind of like, without over-hyping it, it's sort of like Van Gogh and Michelangelo in a paint off."

Wow, what would "over-hyping" be?

More importantly, my Giants today took care of Houston (although not by a lot), and are set to host Chicago next Sunday night for control of the NFC. Hopefully by then I'll be recovered from the election.

That's the spirit

The tugboat company that assisted in the immediate aftermath of the Staten Island Ferry crash in 2003 is suing for a $6 million reward:

"They are making their claims under an ancient tradition called 'pure marine salvage,' which holds that boats that take the trouble to help other boats in distress are entitled to a reward."

I don't now anything about the law here (any maritime lawyers in the house?), but let's talk about the principle. I have no problem with paying them for their efforts - damage to their vessel, time lost (the boat was involved for a few days it seems), etc. But a reward far in excess of that, as something they are so entitled to that they can sue? I'm not so sure.

To be clear, they didn't throw their commercial interests over the side and rush into the stormy sea to offer aid:

"On the day of the crash, Oct. 15, 2003, he was on the Dorothy J., reading the paper and waiting for orders to move an oil barge for the city. His captain was resting below, on a regular four-hour rotation.

'I was engrossed in the paper, and something told me to look up,' he said. The Barberi was heading at top speed right to the Staten Island pier where he was moored."

So, let's be brutally honest. The boat was on some down time, and the ferry came right to them. Plus, they were waiting to work for the city at the time anyway.

"The salvage tradition, which is supported by a long history of case law, is meant to encourage mariners to help one another even if they are jeopardizing their own commercial interests."

Except here, the commercial interests weren't quite jeopardized in the way they would be if you abandoned your fishing grounds to answer a mayday call on the open sea. That might not mean anything legally, but it sure feels different.

"'I don’t need to be a hero,' Mr. Seckers, 59, said this week in a telephone interview from Chesapeake Bay, where he is now the mate on another tug. 'But every crew member on that tug was a hero, and they didn’t get any acknowledgment, thank you or anything for it. It wasn’t right. They went far above the call of duty.'"

Of course, in a technical sense he is right - he didn't sign up to be a hero. But who does? Things happen, and - hopefully - those closest to the situation rise to the occasion. One's reaction should be one of concern and compassion, not a quick check of what the expected value of the reward might be. At least isn't that what your parents taught you?

"But the dispute over the Barberi has made him a little wary about helping others in the future. 'Somebody told me, next time you’re reading a newspaper and feel something bad is happening,' Mr. Seckers said, 'just keep your head in the paper and keep reading.'"

I don't want to minimize what they did. They are heroes, and deserve to be treated as such. It just strikes me that suing for a hefty reward for helping someone, is, well, a bit unseemly. And the suggestion that it might not be worth the trouble to help out others in need in the future if he isn't paid off now, is, well, grotesque.

That day might have been one of his proudest moments, but sharing the thoughts he did in this article wasn't.

More CT

Like I said before, if you set fire to your house, sometimes you wind up burning it down. Who knows if it will come down to this, but oh the joy if it does.

UPDATE: I can't be as dumb as I look if the Economist notes the same thing, can I? Even if it did take them a couple more days . . .

Kerry on Conan

OK, not the real John Kerry, just one of Conan's still pictures with the lips moving. Still funny:

Kerry: "Until Bush admits he's botched this war, I, John Kerry, vow to continue to tell jokes all the way to victory on election day."

O'Brien: "OK, actually, sir, I don't think that's what your party needs right now. I don't think people want you out there telling jokes."

Kerry: "Get ready to laugh. A guy walks into a bar, and orders a purple knee high."

O'Brien: "Uh huh, yeah."

Kerry: "The bartender says, 'What's a purple knee high?' And the guy says, 'Our soldiers are idiots.' Wait, I botched it. Wait. That's not how it goes. Hold on. Wait a minute."

Something to keep in mind

A quick break from election politics for a moment. Pfizer may be having trouble with what is supposed to be its next big drug:

"Pfizer said yesterday that clinical trials of torcetrapib — a heart medication that is the most important drug in the company’s pipeline — confirmed that it raises blood pressure, a potentially serious side effect.

Any problems with torcetrapib would be a serious setback for Pfizer, the world’s largest drug company. Pfizer has been counting on the new medicine to eventually replace the $13 billion in annual sales from the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor, which loses patent protection in 2010.

Cardiologists and Wall Street analysts alike have been closely watching the clinical trials of torcetrapib, a medicine intended to raise so-called good cholesterol.

Pfizer’s stock dropped 2 percent after the announcement by the company, which has been researching torcetrapib for a decade and is spending $800 million to develop it."

For every successful drug that makes it to market, and that is "high priced" during its period of patent exclusivity, there are hundreds (if not thousands) that work was done on but that don't make it. The successful drugs have to pay for them as well. In this case, if torcetrapib were to fail, nearly a billion dollars needs to be recouped. The brightest minds at Pfizer have worked on this for a decade and it still might fail. Something to keep in mind in the heat of campaigns when drug costs are invoked and drug companies are villified.

Delicious irony

Via RealClearPolitics:

"The apparent end of the much-ballyhooed Lamont phenomenon is causing a great deal of soul-searching and recrimination in all corners of the Democratic Party. The bloggers that once championed Mr. Lamont as an awkward but earnest savior now alternately blame Washington’s strategists for hijacking their candidate and Democratic leaders for abandoning him. Beltway consultants fault the Lamont campaign for failing to move the candidate beyond his left-wing celebrity and define him for a greater electorate. . .

'The primary was much more about anger at Bush and the war,' said Josh Isay, a media advisor to Mr. Lieberman and former consultant to Mayor Michael Bloomberg who joined the campaign in August. He stressed that the Lieberman campaign was taking nothing for granted, but argued that the general electorate played much more to his candidate’s favor. 'You have different people going to the voting booth; you have Republicans, independents, unaffiliated—a bigger pie of Democrats.'" (link)

Had they left him alone, Lieberman would have cruised to reelection this year, and they could have devoted their resources elsewhere. Instead, they made a stand in Connecticut, diverting people, money, and media that could have gone to other races (and been deployed against, oh, I don't know, Republicans).

Instead, they targeted their former Vice Presidential nominee - one who agrees with them on almost everything else - simply for his position on the war. Some big tent.

He's been one of the most popular politicians in the state over the past two decades, a state that has more independents than members of either party. They mistakenly thought he would be driven off into the sunset, but were obviously wrong about that.

Now they are paying the price. In a lovely lesson of actions having unintended consequences, their strategy and Lieberman's reaction to it might just save the House for the GOP:

"Sen. Joe Lieberman alienated plenty of Democrats with his independent bid. Just imagine their anger if he costs them control of the House.

The three-term Connecticut senator is aggressively pursuing Republican and independent voters in his race against Democratic nominee Ned Lamont and little-known Republican Alan Schlesinger. That targeted appeal — and the potential for a strong GOP turnout — could save three GOP House incumbents struggling to return to Washington."

It is very possible that the control of the House will literally be by a seat or two. If the Republicans wind up with 218 or 219 seats by means of holding onto their three Connecticut incumbents, can you imagine the reaction of the Left? Oh, the delicious irony. Of course, they will blame Lieberman, rather than their actions which created the situation in the first place.

Republican against capitalism

If you read this blog, it's should be clear that I'm a Republican, and hence want the GOP to win next week. That said, I'm not the type who thinks you never criticize someone on your own side, as I've shown here and here. This is one of those posts.

I just heard an absolutely awful radio ad for Congresswoman Sue Kelly. She was criticizing her opponent John Hall for owning mutual funds that invest in, among other things, Pfizer, Wal-Mart, and oil companies. There was also a charge that one of the companies in one fund shifted something offshore for tax purposes (or something like that, I missed the exact point). I've looked on her campaign site (and elsewhere) for a link to the ad itself, but can't find any. I'll post one if I can track it down.

Now, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that this is in response to other things that have been happening in the race. This clip that I just found from a cable TV debate suggests that the issue of Hall's mutual fund holdings has come up before. That said, do Republicans really want to be running ads that disparage opponents because they own mutual funds, especially ones that own such mainstays of the American economy? So much for the "ownership society."

I'm sure there are plenty of Kelly defenders that will say I am missing the "nuance" of the ad, that it is about hypocrisy, etc. Nonsense. If I, as a political junkie and investment professional, am missing the nuance, then I can guarantee you that the average voter will as well. And it will contribute to a culture that will make attacks like this acceptable. In the end such a culture will be much more damaging to Republicans rather than Democrats, never mind society at large.

I know next to nothing about Sue Kelly and the dynamics of this race. But I do know that this ad is just terrible, and if this is the best she can do, we are in real trouble. Maybe her internals are even worse than the published numbers, which show it a toss-up right now. The ad reeks of desperation.

Plus, if poor Larry Kudlow hears this ad he might just have a heart attack, and we can't have that happen.

UPDATE: An anti-Kelly blogger in the comments provides the link that I couldn't find myself; you can listen to the ad here. I actually wound up hearing the ad a few more times today on the radio, and let me tell you that it did not grow on me. At all.

About the only possible (defensible) rationale I could think of for it would be if Hall had made similar accusations about Kelly before. Even then, this is just stupid (and that's the nicest word I can come up with for it). As I said before, I know very little about Rep. Kelly, and even less about her race this year. For all I know, she may be an excellent congresswoman, and I selfishly want her to win this year in order to help preserve the Republican majority. That said, the best thing I can say about this ad is that it is embarrassing (to the side that paid for it, mind you). If saying so gives comfort to her opponents this week, so be it.

Please, take this thing off the air already, and make a real case for why either 1) you deserve to be sent to Washington, or 2) your opponent does not. This ad is not it.

Quote of the day

Just watched (at 5:12 pm eastern time) an exchange between Wolf Blitzer and Jack Cafferty on CNN. Cafferty went on a rant about Kerry's comments yesterday. Not the comments themselves, of course, but rather their effect:

"Why is John Kerry speaking anywhere about anything? What does he symbolize when it comes to the Democratic Party? Failure. He lost the election in 2004. . .

[Howard Dean should say to Kerry:] 'Go get on your boat. Go fish. Go play soccer. Go out and commune with nature. Sit in the woods until the election is over. Please don't talk. Please don't have your picture taken. Just go away.'

He symbolizes failure. You know, watching the Democrats try to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is a spectator sport in this country, and here they go, flirting with it again. . . Why is he talking to anybody? . . . Wait till the election is over. It's not helping."

You can almost hear him thinking, "With all the help we're giving you, how can you possibly not win this thing running away? Get out of our way, we'll take care of it." I think he's worried.

I'll look for a video link, and if I can find one will post it.

UPDATE: Welcome Hot Air readers. You might also be interested in GOP senators who are sitting on their cash (here and here), a conspiracy theorist who thinks that the government has a cloaking device, what CBS News thinks of the current Congress, or what Ted Turner had to say about North Koreans being "thin." Enjoy.

UPDATE 2: Here is a link to the transcript. The portion in question is a little less than half way down.

UPDATE 3: Don Imus has advice similar to Jack Cafferty's (via Drudge):

Regarding the contention that this was just a "joke" gone wrong, well, the only person who knows that for sure is Senator Kerry. As for the broader opinions of the military by some on the Left, though, I will direct your attention to some excellent comments by John at Power Line. Money quote:

"Why are liberals so determined to hang on to these discredited stereotypes of the past? I suspect it is because the young men and women who serve in the armed forces are a constant reproach to liberals' facile, politically-motivated pronouncements on foreign policy. Iraq is a disaster (never mind that I voted for it)! But the young men and women who are stationed there don't think so. They re-enlist in remarkable numbers; a large majority believe in their mission; and they are working hard, risking their lives, and making considerable progress on many fronts. So it's helpful for liberals to think: what do they know? They're only soldiers--they must be dumb!"

Obviously there are many people who don't think like that. But I know from my own experiences that such an attitude definitely exists.

UPDATE 4: "Mel Gibson without the booze."

Way, way too much time on their hands

Happy Halloween!



(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)

Occam & Reynolds

Occam's Razor, a bedrock of clear thinking:

"Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or 'shaving off,' those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation."

I'm the government. I want you to think terrorists took planes and flew them into the World Trade Center. Therefore, I take planes and fly them into the World Trade Center, right?

Wrong.

What I would actually do is remote control a plane towards the tower. Then, when I was right there, I would "switch to invisibility" at the same time that charges would detonate in the tower to mimic an explosion. Under this government issue cloak of invisibility, the actual plane would then be flown out to the sea, where it would be directed to crash in order to destroy the evidence of the ruse.

Mr. Reynolds used to work for the government. If that isn't proof that the government isn't smart enough to pull stuff like this off, I don't know what is. But wait, he was "a former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor 2001-2002." That means he worked for Bush. He must be a plant! Damn Karl Rove!

To be fair, this paper didn't even make the cut of some of the other conspiracy theorists:

"Therefore, we present our analysis below for your critical review with the product warning that our analysis has failed to achieve the highly sought-after 'Journal of 9/11 Studies' seal of approval."

Highly sought after indeed.

(Hat tip: Screw Loose Change)

This ad brought to you by the DNC

I had the TV on in the background before while I was on the computer. As you would expect for the week before the election, over the course of an hour there were candidate ads for senate, congress, some state-wide races and some local ones. I wasn't even looking at the screen a few minutes ago when a new ad started with the following voice over:

"Stepping up when the do little congress won't."

OK, must be a Democratic ad for something. It continued:

"On issues like immigration, the minimum wage, stem cell research, and the environment, states are taking the initiative, and California leads the pack."

California? I'm in New York. What candidate thinks they should mention California?

"Tonight, the Golden State's tough new laws, and what they mean for you. When Katie Couric reports from LA on the CBS evening news. See it now."

Wow. And they're surprised that no one trusts them.

Quote of the day

"Bush hatred is silly and parochial and reductive: History is on the march and the anti-Bush crowd is holding the telescope the wrong way round." - Mark Steyn

There is still time to make a difference

As a follow-up to my earlier post here, I just spent some time on PoliticalMoneyLine looking at the latest cash on hand figures for the various Republican senators and candidates. First, more bad news about the overall state of the NRSC, from the committee reports:

As I said before, what a disaster. Given the incredible importance and closeness of the election, though, are our existing Republican senators in any position to help out? Here are the latest cash on hand figures for current Republican incumbent senators:

I took the polling data from here. So, we have incumbents who aren't even up for reelection this year sitting on $46 million in cash, and people who are running this year but up by over 30 points sitting on another $19 million. That's $65 million in total.

Think among them they could come up with $10 million or so for the NRSC in about 24 hours? I do.

Think another $10 million or so of ads in two or three key races might be enough to save some seats? I do.

I know that I am ignoring the PACs they run, etc., and that I am also in a way penalizing those who have done a good job raising money. The fact remains, though, that these resources are currently there, and spending down some of them over the next two weeks may be the difference between a majority in the next congress or not.

So, how do we get some pressure on these senators to get their checkbooks out? Dole clearly isn't up to the challenge - the pressure is going to have to come from elsewhere.

[As an aside, I'm sitting here thinking through GOP monetary campaign strategy in a coffee shop in NYC's East Village. If the people around me knew what I was typing away about, they would probably throw me out. Or something worse . . .]

UPDATE: Power Line quotes Charlie Cook on the MD Senate race, which he now thinks is a toss-up:

"One question is whether the national Republican Party will get involved in the race now that polls show a closer-than-expected contest? Advertising in Maryland, particularly in the Washington, DC media market, can be expensive and there are only 11 days left. If the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee or the Republican National Committee does become engaged in the next few days, they could make a difference just by matching what national Democrats have spent and launching some attacks on Cardin."

There's a place for some of that money. NJ would be another good choice. Actually, to hit NJ you need to buy time in NY and Philadelphia. Generic ads in the Philadelphia market would have the added benefit of helping Santorum as well. MO, TN, and VA would seem to be the other candidates for more help.

If you're up by over 30 points, kick in 20% of your cash - you don't need it. If you aren't up for reelection until 2010, kick in 20% of your cash - you'll have plenty of time to get more. If you're up for reelection in 2008, kick in only 10% of your cash in order to be extra cautious. If the existing GOP senators all did that, it would mean an additional $11 million for ads in the coming 10 days.

Don't any of them want to be chairmen next year?

Loose Change/Upper East Side: Part VII - Conclusion

(Note: This is the seventh (and final) in a series of posts about 9/11 conspiracy theorists and their reaction to the Cory Lidle tragedy on October 11th. Earlier parts: I, II, III, IV, V, and VI.)

Cory Lidle and Tyler Stanger crashed their small plane into a residential building over two weeks ago. In the intervening time, I’ve obviously spent quite a few hours on the event, first reading and monitoring the Loose Change message board that dealt with the tragedy, and then transforming my notes into a series of posts on this website.

Why in the world would I do this?

Actually, that question should be broken up into two parts: why would I decide to spend time challenging the conspiracy theorists at all, and why would I decide to use the Lidle tragedy as a means to do so? Let me answer the second question first.

The Cory Lidle crash was a horrible tragedy. Its exact cause is not known at this time, but – as I mentioned earlier – it appears to have been the result of a failed u-turn attempt by an inexperienced pilot in a narrow flight corridor that left little room for error. If these early indications wind up being borne out, then we will need to seriously look at the flight rules around Manhattan that allow for a situation like this to develop.

The specific findings of the eventual accident report notwithstanding, the Lidle crash was also very simple. A small plane with two civilians in it crashed into an anonymous tower on the eastern edge of Manhattan. It happened in the middle of the day in one of the busiest places on the planet. There were scores of witnesses. Within minutes multiple camera crews were on the scene, broadcasting pictures live. Within an hour or so the fire was out. Within two hours or so we knew the identity of at least one person on the plane. No further events ensued. While those first headlines that a “plane crashed into a building in New York” left all of us (especially in New York) stressed and worried, we also quickly put our worst fears to rest by examining what was going on and the evidence regarding what had happened.

In its combination of tragedy and simplicity, the Lidle crash offers us a test. If you develop a new model, technique, tool, or the like, you test it to make sure it performs as you might expect. The best way to test something is with known data; if it produces the answer you expect and know is right, then the model may be considered validated (at least partially). On the other hand, if it fails to replicate answers that you already know to be true, then you have a problem. In such a case, the model is faulty, and needs to be fixed or replaced before you can hope to get any information from it about things you don’t know yet, or that are more complicated.

As I described above, we know what happened in the case of Lidle, and in fact we knew what happened rather quickly. In that sense, as a “test” of cognitive ability, rationality, and visceral instincts, the Lidle crash is a rather simple challenge. My reason for highlighting it in the context of the Loose Change adherents and other conspiracy theorists is to see how well they performed under such “test” conditions. To put it another way, if they can’t get something as simple as this right, why on earth would we trust what they have to say about the tougher stuff (i.e. 9/11)?

My friends, they failed miserably.

Note that it is not enough for them to say today that they now believe that the Lidle crash was an accident; at this point 16 days later, only someone truly deranged would think that it was a conspiracy of some sort. No, we can still call them out even by focusing only on that first day after the crash. What were their instincts - should we trust them? How was their ability to focus on key issues, to process information, to separate data from noise? Could they recognize honest, conflicting reports from the scene as the mistakes they were? Did they adjust their theories based on the evidence, or attempt to adjust the evidence to fit their theories? Did they effectively police their own members’ sloppy thinking, or were all opinions tolerated in the spirit of there being no such thing as a “bad question”? Did superstition or deduction direct their “analysis”?

You need to learn to walk before you can run. Analyzing the Lidle crash was like learning to crawl, and figuring out the events of September 11th and its aftermath is like running a marathon. If you can’t do the former, you will be utterly useless in tackling the latter. This event was the “control,” and the “control” has shown us that the tool, the model, the movement is not to be trusted.

What are some things that characterize the conspiracy movement? Lazy intellectual standards. Incredibly poor knowledge of mathematics, especially statistical theory. Little accountability. An apparent unfamiliarity with the science of chaos, complex systems, and self-organizing phenomena. Paranoia. An unparalleled ability to data mine themselves to ridiculous conclusions. A disarming tendency to attribute evil and complicity to large swaths of their fellow man. Delusions of grandeur, and other related psychoses. Perhaps most importantly, a rejection of the scientific process, under which there always exists a theoretical set of evidence that would prove your hypothesis wrong. No such evidence exists for the conspiracy monger, for it would only go to further “prove” the conspiracy. Conspiracy isn’t a theory to these people; it is a religion.

Now back to first question: why worry about it? If you are reading this blog, more likely than not you already think that the 9/11 conspiracy movement is nuts. You forget about them if possible, ignore them when necessary, mock them only when you absolutely have to face them in one context or another. In general, you think that they are not worth your time or attention. I know this impulse, and have personally followed it myself for the past few years.

The trouble is, we need to speak up. Too many of our fellow citizens are now taking their gibberish seriously; one survey in the US reports that over a third of the population thinks that the government was somehow complicit in the attacks. Too many of our politicians (mostly on the Left, I observe with no joy) give some of them rhetorical safe harbor. DNC chair Howard Dean thinks there are "interesting" theories raised. Too many entertainers think that it is somehow professionally beneficial to nod approvingly in their direction. Too many of the “cool” and the “hip” think that of course the government was in on it, and too many of their friends think it is enough to change the subject when such garbage is brought up.

Our responsibilities, though, are much greater. Some among us are doing the heavy lifting; sites like Screw Loose Change and 9/11 Myths – to name but two – are doing the yeoman’s work of confronting the conspiracy theorists head on. They’ve earned our appreciation, and deserve our help. And not, I may add, simply in the world of “debunker” websites. Instead, we must move beyond talking just to ourselves, and make the case among the broader public. What the conspiracy theorists charge is intellectually dishonest, but just as important morally reprehensible. Yet they do it with impunity, casting their development of “alternative explanations” as some sort of noble cause, instead of the bankrupt, self-aggrandizing bout of mental masturbation that it is. Such impunity should end.

Challenge them. Confront, don’t coddle. Mock mercilessly. Get angry. Get indignant. Don’t let them get away with skulking in the intellectual shadows, preying on innocent people who would know better if they took the time, but are instead taken in by pseudo science and slick appeals to their worst instincts. Cast light upon these shadowy arguments, and watch them fade away as a result. Sunlight is a wonderful disinfectant, and we’re allowing too much of the conspiracy world to exist in a social twilight – generally dismissed, but still allowed to fester.

Why did I do this? Because it has to be done. I hope that you will help.