Author Topic: Stand by your sham: Conspiracy theory (3)  (Read 99 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rangerrebew

  • America defending Veteran
  • TBR Contributor
  • *****
  • Posts: 109,745
  • �It�s easier to fool people than to convince them
Stand by your sham: Conspiracy theory (3)
« on: October 06, 2019, 07:20:16 AM »
Posted on October 4, 2019 by Scott Johnson in Ilhan Omar, Media
Stand by your sham: Conspiracy theory (3)

What does it mean to disparage the case that Ilhan Omar married her brother in 2009 as a “conspiracy theory”? We saw in part 1 that the Daily Beast, the New Yorker and others have dismissed it by resort to this term or term.

Benjamin Wallace-Wells characterizes it as such in his New Yorker profile of Omar. Perhaps nothing more about the profile of Omar need be said than this: it represents an embarrassing piece of agitprop or fanboy journalism. Making the necessary changes, it might be drawn from the archives of Soviet Life or Tiger Beat. By contrast, however, Will Sommer pretends to contend with the facts of the Omar case in his Daily Beast article on it.

As a general matter, I can understand the reluctance to believe the story. It is almost unbelievable. Mark Twain observed long ago that we have no native criminal class except Congress, but he was talking about old-fashioned misconduct of the kind with which we are all familiar. In Congress, the Omar case presents a novel form of corrupt misconduct.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/10/stand-by-your-sham-conspiracy-theory-3.php
“A society does not ever die ‘from natural causes’, but always dies from suicide or murder – and nearly always from the former….”
    ― Arnold Joseph Toynbee’s A Study of History.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf