How Absurd: 8 Crazy Reactions, Ridiculous Conclusions, and

[OP ED]

Overall, rather confused as to why his commentary merits any consideration and discussion, and indeed, why he still has any cachet in this community at all.

I apologize for my little deconstruction. I would have considered it superfluous and unnecessary a few years ago here, but times have changed, and the McGowan article had been posted largely unanswered at least five times in the last month or so.

indeed. i just wasted half an hour of my life reading through this hoping for something concrete and/or at least new and interesting.

[stickdog99]

Here is an interview with the photographer, containing a link to a galley of the photos. I have all the confidence in the world that you can uncover a recondite link between him and a shadowy agency or two.

While I agree that I'm not sure what MacGowan is on about in about 90% of his latest "analysis", I do find the photographer's Linked In page interesting.

He has recently worked for several Hedge Funds specializing in "stressed assets."

Huge network, both local and global, with extensive experience building relationships around the world including the Middle East (10 trips to the region over my career)

[Iamwhomiam]

Sorry, C_w, my mistake. I misunderstood and confused Iffrig with McGowen

Apparently the photos and videos of the "frail old runner" and his position vis-avis the bomb are unavailable to McGowan. BTW, his name is Bill Iffrig, but McGowan can't let you know this, as it would tend to personalize the man, making it marginally less likely that you might be inclined to mockingly dismiss anything about him or the larger issues at hand

.

I will edit if possible to correct my gross error. Thank you for alerting me to my error.

[Canadian_watcher]

Sorry, C_w, my mistake. I misunderstood and confused Iffrig with McGowen

Apparently the photos and videos of the "frail old runner" and his position vis-avis the bomb are unavailable to McGowan. BTW, his name is Bill Iffrig, but McGowan can't let you know this, as it would tend to personalize the man, making it marginally less likely that you might be inclined to mockingly dismiss anything about him or the larger issues at hand

.

I will edit if possible to correct my gross error. Thank you for alerting me to my error.

I guess some might think it to be more gross than others. I don't think it's that bad!

[compared2what?]

After further review, I have a number of questions about this shot, beginning with why, given that the media establishment was clearly on a mission to traumatize us with the most graphic images available, do we have only one shot of this particular scene - and an out-of-focus, poorly exposed one at that? And why is this the only view we have of the hollowed-out leg guy, who we can't even recognize from this angle and distance? Given the numerous graphic, very bloody images we have of Jeff, why didn't this guy get equal time? Were his prosthetics and make-up not as convincing as Jeff's? Where are the close-up shots of him lying in a pool of his own blood? And where is his iconic wheelchair shot?

Does anyone else see the problems with this line of questioning?

Yes. It's such a short step from what he's doing to



that I'm not sure there is one at all.

I mean, he's literally conditioning his readers to respond to slaughter in the streets by jeering at the victims and feeling good about themselves for doing it. And if that's not the same problem outlined here in a slightly different configuration, I don't see how.

People think they're not capable of it. But that's why they are.

I realize how annoying that is, fwiw. Sorry. If I could think of something to do about it besides say it, I would.
______________

Edited for typos.

[Canadian_watcher]

It's a good thing this isn't a court of law, talk about irrelevant but even it if weren't that so called 'evidence' would be barred not only for its blatantly prejudicial quality, but because it violates several other admissibility rules as it goes not to fact but to prior acts (not of the people in question, mind you), and character (of other people, mind you)

so here we have hyperbolic guilt by association once again.

I speak up again because I think this sort of thing is truly divisive, and that plays right into the hands of fascist, tyrants and other scumbag totalitarian types. if we run around the internet damning to hell the people who take alternative views of public events then that spillover will infect the real world. it'll be more "us" v "them" and just when we need that the LEAST.

It's not that I suppport or defend McGowan in particular, but I see no need to hold him up as the next Hitler (or in this case Lindsay whatsherface). I cannot imagine why anyone thinks doing so is a good idea.

[compared2what?]

You are, again, misreading me, which I regret but am powerless to change.

ON EDIT: But what the hell, I'll give it a go.

I'm not saying anyone's guilty or that anyone's Hitler. I'm saying that you, I, McGowan, Lynndie England, the prisoner on the leash, Jeff Baumann, Krystle Campbell, Carlos Arredondo, and all the other people in those pictures are people. Like me. Or you.

And I'm also saying that's not how McGowan sees the last four. Or how he's encouraging his readers to see them. Or, per Zimbardo, how Lynndie England saw the prisoner on the leash.

And I'm also saying that everyone who does that is making the same mistake, to which all people are prone, in part, because they don't think themselves capable of making it.

Despite which, they're all still people, like you and me, including Lynndie England and Dave McGowan. And, of course, you and me.

That's not divisive. It's the opposite. People might be resistant to hearing it. But I can't help that.

[barracuda]

if we run around the internet damning to hell the people who take alternative views of public events then that spillover will infect the real world.

I think you can advance an "alternative view" of this event without moving to the position of outright mockery of the victims. Just consider how ridiculously certain in your mind you'd have to be of the thesis being put forward here - that the victims of the bombings are actually amputee actors quickly attaching prosthetic special effects bones and blood to their stumps (!) - in order to arrive at a place where you feel confident enough about it to direct people to hate them. In writing.

Somewhere along the way, critical thinking and human empathy became replaced with fear and hatred. And to what end? What is accomplished by the vile characterizations and casual put-downs that couldn't have been better served with a modicum of humility? Because it's not as if he really knows if he's right, right?

The pretense of certainty regarding fakery around this attack (and many others) allows the outside observers to personalize the event with themselves as the target. It didn't happen to them, it's not about them, and this is unacceptable. The notion that a shadow group faked the bombing or inserted ringers into the aftermath switches the direction of the attack towards the viewer of the images and the readers of the articles, thereby increasing their sense of personal importance.

It boils down to narcissism.

[conniption]

Part 4 of Dave McGowan’s Special Report on the Boston Marathon is up…

… and I’ll be damned if I’m going to post it here.

Here is the last paragraph with a promise of more to come:

Predictably enough, I have received email berating me for stooping so low as to attack the victims of this tragedy. It should be perfectly clear though by now, to anyone who is paying attention, that I have done no such thing. The people in those graphic, blood-soaked images were not the victims of this attack. You and I were.

That’s all for now, but there is more to come. Stay tuned.

I wish you guys would give it a rest. Dave has done some great work in the past and it’s embarrassing to watch you dismiss his effort for pointing out the obvious when it comes to the Boston bombing scenario.

*

The Pedophocracy
by David McGowan

*

davesweb


Programmed to Kill, my latest offering, takes the reader on a dark and troubling journey over some rough, and likely unfamiliar, terrain. Just as Understanding the F-Word was an alternative look at twentieth-century American political history, Programmed to Kill is an alternative look at violent crime in twentieth-century America. This may seem, at first glance, like a radical departure from my previous books -- until one realizes that in this modern world that we inhabit, there is no discernible difference between crime and politics. If you aren't yet convinced of that, you might be after you finish reading this book.

*

davesweb


Understanding the F-Word, a disturbing look at twentieth-century American history, was published two months before the September 11 attacks.
Table of Contents
Chapter 3: The One-Party State?
Chapter 7: World War II, Through the Looking Glass
Chapter 10: The Boy King, 1901-1909
Chapter 28: Lies My Psychology Professors Taught Me
Chapter 29: Genomes and Eugenics
Click here to read an online review by Canadian writer Stephen Gowans.

*

davesweb


Derailing Democracy, my first literary effort, was published in March 2000.
Click here to preview the book's introduction and table of contents.
"The greatest book of the year."
William Blum
"A shocking revelation, a rich treasure of taboo information and criticism about the undemocratic repression, militarism and aggression perpetrated by U.S. elites at home and abroad. Every American should read Derailing Democracy."
Michael Parenti

*

And of course, our very own Laurel Canyon thread.

[barracuda]

I’ll be damned if I’m going to post it here.

Thank you.

Predictably enough, I have received email berating me for stooping so low as to attack the victims of this tragedy. It should be perfectly clear though by now, to anyone who is paying attention, that I have done no such thing. The people in those graphic, blood-soaked images were not the victims of this attack. You and I were.

As I said, pure narcissism.

[FourthBase]

I wish you guys would give it a rest. Dave has done some great work in the past and it’s embarrassing to watch you dismiss his effort for pointing out the obvious when it comes to the Boston bombing scenario.

Should we interpret that as you having graduated from "pretty damn sure" to certain?

Yes, he has done great work in the past.
Hence, why some people are especially disconcerted.

[Canadian_watcher]

You are, again, misreading me, which I regret but am powerless to change.

well, let me see. You posted this:

After further review, I have a number of questions about this shot, beginning with why, given that the media establishment was clearly on a mission to traumatize us with the most graphic images available, do we have only one shot of this particular scene - and an out-of-focus, poorly exposed one at that? And why is this the only view we have of the hollowed-out leg guy, who we can't even recognize from this angle and distance? Given the numerous graphic, very bloody images we have of Jeff, why didn't this guy get equal time? Were his prosthetics and make-up not as convincing as Jeff's? Where are the close-up shots of him lying in a pool of his own blood? And where is his iconic wheelchair shot?

Does anyone else see the problems with this line of questioning?

Yes. It's such a short step from what he's doing to



that I'm not sure there is one at all.

I mean, he's literally conditioning his readers to respond to slaughter in the streets by jeering at the victims and feeling good about themselves for doing it. And if that's not the same problem outlined here in a slightly different configuration, I don't see how.

People think they're not capable of it. But that's why they are.

I realize how annoying that is, fwiw. Sorry. If I could think of something to do about it besides say it, I would.
______________

Edited for typos.

Which to me seems to be saying that the way McGowan wrote his article is one step behind what certain soldiers did to prisoners in Abu-Ghraib prisoners in terms of its dehumanization.

Am I incorrect in my interpretation? Please correct me if I am.

The article that you linked to in the second part of your post is about new thinking with regards to the banality of evil. A short exerpt:

People do great wrong, not because they are unaware of what they are doing but because they consider it to be right. This is possible because they actively identify with groups whose ideology justifies and condones the oppression and destruction of others.

I see that you could apply this to McGowan in a loose way if you believe that he is oppressing or destroying others with his research, and you seem to be arguing that that is the case with your conviction that he is in essence 'revictimizing the victims.' I can understand why you would say that, and I agree that this type of research treads a thin line - the doubt that is raised as to the authenticity of the victims can be labeled as dehumanizing. However I argue that we can't shy away from these questions just because they are awkward. It would be too easy, then, for tyrants to shut down debate claiming that it might hurt someone who is innocent.

The quote from the article, above, can be applied another way, though. It can be applied to the people trying to shame others into not looking into hard to look in to areas - ie the use of actors and props and other propagandistic tools at the scenes of world events.

To be blunt, your association (however slyly attempted) of McGowan and his 'methods' with the vague, shadowy world of Kabbalah followers and then the monstrous soldiers who took joy in torturing prisoners at Abu-Ghraib can be seem in the light of someone doing 'great wrong because she considers is to be right. It is possible for you to do this because you actively identify with groups whose ideology justifies and condones the oppression and (character) destruction of others."

[barracuda]

we can't shy away from these questions just because they are awkward. It would be too easy, then, for tyrants to shut down debate claiming that it might hurt someone who is innocent.

And here we have the diametric opposite of Blackstone's formulation. Wonderful.

[compared2what?]

if we run around the internet damning to hell the people who take alternative views of public events then that spillover will infect the real world.

I think you can advance an "alternative view" of this event without moving to the position of outright mockery of the victims. Just consider how ridiculously certain in your mind you'd have to be of the thesis being put forward here - that the victims of the bombings are actually amputee actors quickly attaching prosthetic special effects bones and blood to their stumps (!) - in order to arrive at a place where you feel confident enough about it to direct people to hate them. In writing.

Somewhere along the way, critical thinking and human empathy became replaced with fear and hatred. And to what end? What is accomplished by the vile characterizations and casual put-downs that couldn't have been better served with a modicum of humility? Because it's not as if he really knows if he's right, right?

The pretense of certainty regarding fakery around this attack (and many others) allows the outside observers to personalize the event with themselves as the target. It didn't happen to them, it's not about them, and this is unacceptable. The notion that a shadow group faked the bombing or inserted ringers into the aftermath switches the direction of the attack towards the viewer of the images and the readers of the articles, thereby increasing their sense of personal importance.

It boils down to narcissism.

I don't think it necessarily does.

Look. It's human nature to look at the most terrifying painting 82_28 has ever seen and identify with the martyrs not the crowd. That's a good-hearted impulse, and probably well-merited by reality for most people, and also the exact same impulse that makes it human nature to look at pictures of human suffering and feel nothing if the people in them are presented to you as part of Team Crowd and not Team Martyr -- ie, as crisis actors.

But it's still a good-hearted impulse. It's just a mistake. And a false dichotomy. Just because you're a martyr in one configuration, doesn't mean you're not the crowd in another, no matter how profoundly you understand and empathize with martyrs or how truly and completely you loathe crowds. Almost everybody has it in them to be both. And almost nobody wants to know it. Which is why there are crowds. And martyrs. And crowds. And [etc.]

Was that clear? It's an important point to me to make, for non-judgmental, non-hostile reasons.

[IanEye]

I see that you could apply this to McGowan in a loose way if you believe that he is oppressing or destroying others with his research, and you seem to be arguing that that is the case with your conviction that he is in essence 'revictimizing the victims.' I can understand why you would say that, and I agree that this type of research treads a thin line - the doubt that is raised as to the authenticity of the victims can be labeled as dehumanizing. However I argue that we can't shy away from these questions just because they are awkward. It would be too easy, then, for tyrants to shut down debate claiming that it might hurt someone who is innocent.

would you feel comfortable coming to Boston and asking people on the street to seriously consider McGowan's contention that the individuals injured in the marathon bombing are not actually victims but instead imposters?

or is that something you would shy away from?