Proof of conspiracy

A couple weeks ago (yeah, I'm behind in my reading) Newsweek had a cover article on conspiracy theories and how they interfere with democracy. There are a lot of conspiracy theories floating around these days. Perhaps the best current example is Birthers, those who claim Obama wasn't born in America (though they seem to have quieted down). Newsweek notes that these theories are so numerous and their believers so strident they are now interfering with democracy. An example is a proposal for improved bike paths attacked as an insidious socialist scheme. Thoughtful discourse on issues is being shut down. There is also the problem that the more effort is made to disprove a conspiracy the more its adherents believe the speaker is a part of the conspiracy.

Alas, a great article was spoiled. In the examples the article mentioned was the supposed attempt by the Bush II administration to steal the 2004 election. Nope, sorry, that one is well documented both by What Went Wrong in Ohio written by Congressman John Conyers and What Happened in Ohio: A Documentary Record of Theft and Fraud in the 2004 Election by Robert Fitrakis. In contrast, the birther conspiracy can be easily refuted by Obama's birth certificate (not that such evidence would change their minds).

That got me thinking about the difference between a conspiracy theory and a legitimate challenge to a power that the power wants to suppress or dismiss. It comes down to proof. But whose standards of proof gets used? I mention this because of the various challenges to power I'm involved with.

The first one is my change of diet and the nutritionist who has prompted it. Traditional medicine would say they have the proof a low-fat diet is the way to go (and my eye doctor ranted about that when he heard I am now eating a low-carb, high-fat diet). My nutritionist counters with proof -- studies of her methods and of collusion between government nutritionists and the food additive industry.

A second one, mentioned in the Newsweek article, is about the safety of fluoride in water. This is a "conspiracy" my nutritionist has proof to back up.

The third is bankruptcy proceedings in Detroit. The Emergency Manager, Kevyn Orr, is currently at the Detroit Regional Chamber conference. He decried the "lies" being told about the Grand Bargain he put together. Yesterday, I took part in another Freedom Friday demonstration. There were only 30 of us in front of the Detroit Water & Sewerage Dept. The DWSD supplies water for the city and all the suburbs for quite a distance (I think Flint, 70 miles north, is working to get out of the Detroit water system) so it serves about 5 million people. We protested there because Orr is trying to work out a deal to transfer the water dept. to the suburbs so he can wring cash out of it. The suburbs are saying it doesn't make sense for their water to be a profit center for Detroit. Besides, money to improve the system was diverted to pay off a bad bank deal and improvements would have to come from suburban coffers. A good chunk of the protest is because DWSD is working real hard to shut off water to residents who may be as little as $150 behind in their payments while many of the big players in Detroit have huge bills -- reportedly Palmer Park Golf Club owes $200,000. So are the protesters spreading in a conspiracy theory? Is Orr the one who is lying?

Orr says the deal now on the table is the best one city pensioners can get. The numbers can't get any better. If they refuse their situation will only get worse. But there is another piece being ignored in Detroit. There is news today that Los Angeles is suing JPMorgan Chase for fraudulent mortgage practices that blighted that city. Why isn't Orr pursuing the same route? Getting money from the banks rather than giving it to the banks will make numbers for pensioners work out a whole lot better.