Fitting with yesterday’s theme of “generic skepticism”, today we go to Newtown Connecticut – the site of the horrible school shooting that took the lives of 26 people about a month ago – and the work of a good Samaritan whose intentions are being questioned by a group of people who are in serious need of a dictionary.
… and maybe a little less tin foil. Okay, a lot less.
One month ago, [Gene Rosen] found six little children and a bus driver at the end of the driveway of his home in Newtown, Conn. “We can’t go back to school,” one little boy told Rosen. “Our teacher is dead.” He brought them inside and gave them food and juice and toys. He called their parents. He sat with them and listened to their shocked accounts of what had happened just down the street inside Sandy Hook Elementary, close enough that Rosen heard the gunshots.
Normal people would read this and think to themselves, “wow, that sounds like a pretty decent guy. He opened his home to these kids, took them in, and kept them safe until their parents arrived.”
But then, the “truthers” arrived:
“I don’t know what to do,” sighed Gene Rosen. “I’m getting hang-up calls, I’m getting some calls, I’m getting emails with, not direct threats, but accusations that I’m lying, that I’m a crisis actor, ‘how much am I being paid?’” Someone posted a photo of his house online. There have been phony Google+ and YouTube accounts created in his name, messages on white supremacist message boards ridiculing the “emotional Jewish guy,” and dozens of blog posts and videos “exposing” him as a fraud. One email purporting to be a business inquiry taunted: “How are all those little students doing? You know, the ones that showed up at your house after the ‘shooting’. What is the going rate for getting involved in a gov’t sponsored hoax anyway?”
It aggravates me to no end to see a group of paranoid conspiracy fanatics called anything with the word “truth” in it. The heaping pile of anti-Semitism is a nice touch, but not altogether surprising. These people are of the same ilk who are convinced that the September 11th attacks were also staged, the Moon landing was a hoax, and that Pearl Harbor was attacked by our own forces to give us an excuse to jump into the war. They’re not interested in the truth; they’re too wrapped up in their distrust of the government to consider for a moment that there is no evidence to support their claim.
People like this are nothing more than an insult to the collective intelligence humanity, and are a personal affront to those who lost a loved one on that horrible day. You want the truth? Go ask one of the parents of the children who died. Maybe Veronique Pozner, whose son’s lower jaw and left hand were blown off by the gunfire that ended up taking his life. They still had an open casket for his funeral. I’m sure she’ll be happy to educate you on what you can do with your little government cover-up fantasies. I warn you, though, that there probably won’t be enough of you to fill a dustpan by the time she’s done.
Unfortunately, some people consider ideology to be more important than reality, and no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. That’s what makes dealing with them so difficult – there’s no logic or reasoning that can be brought to bear because it just doesn’t carry any weight. When their mindset is dependent on a distinct lack of critical thought and rationality, the only constructive response is to ignore them …
… or vote them out of office.
EDIT: Apparently there’s a video going around “exposing the truth” about the Sandy Hook shooting. The link above goes to the video AND a point-by-point debunking of said video. Even though I didn’t author the piece I thought I’d link to it here, since it’s worth a read. His prologue:
First off I want to note – the main contributor of information in this video and around this conspiracy is Alex Jones. He is, in my opinion, a paranoid nutjob, as was pretty evident by his CNN interview – seriously skip to 3 minutes in and tell me this guy is sane. (My intent here is not ad hominem, just wanted to give some context as to the presenters of these “facts” and their origins)