The Difference Between Conspiracies and Opinions

You’d expect to hear controversial topics in uni; it’s probably one of the earliest times people get to really indulge in and expand their worldview.  Every now and then, though, someone says something that makes you seriously consider if controversy is just a cover for some very ill-placed comments.

One older lady was discussing the 9/11 attacks on the WTC with another shuttle passenger.  The first woman was explaining that there was a large sum of gold in the underground bank of the WTC.  Apparently, the vaulted gold had to be opened by 6 representatives of different countries though simultaneous key turns.  The woman went on to loudly explain that the 9/11 attacks and the following war in Iraq, as well as the almost-paranoid lookout for terrorism from without and within, were cover-ups for the US government to covertly steal this gold.

This argument seems very…farfetched simply by the scope of the problems it caused compared to the goal of possessing gold (which probably has less value than what conflicts it ended up causing).  I would usually be able to at least agree that the possibility of this argument is valid, since the tactics of the US government aren’t particularly ones that I could defend as innocuous.  But the extreme tone and volume of the woman’s voice made me totally disregard the right of the woman’s opinion to exist.  The manner in which the idea was stated did bot involve the people who died at the WTC; this is probably what bothered me the most about what the woman said.  So many people died needlessly and cruelly but all the woman talked about was how it affected the government and our economy.  There are some aspects to a subject that people should not forget to mention, at least in passing, when talking so passionately on the events.  Failing to do so made the woman who was talking more of a demagogue than any sort of expert.

Someone call the waaaahh-mbulance!

(Photo Link)

This point of the WTC attacks being a carefully orchestrated plot by the government to take gold was not the main point of this woman’s argument.  It was actually a comparison to a more reasonable discussion about the local (Baltimore) corporate ethics of Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions.  How can a very reasonable argument be supported by a theory based entirely on circumstantial possibility?

In order for Johns Hopkins to expand their already-enormous hold in the Baltimore Metropolitan area, the corporate arm of the institution is buying off residential homes in the area.  The bought properties in East Baltimore are held either by a landlord, commonly the case in the area, or by the residing homeowner.  The owner of the property are supposed to be compensated for the sale.  This is not as much of a problem if the owner is also the resident, but often times the resident sublets the living quarters from the landlord.  In this case, the landlord is paid for sale of the property and the residents usually have 60 days to vacate, without any benefit of compensation for unexpected loss of housing.

The area itself is economically disadvantaged so, to someone who lives there, the compensation for the local owners may seem proportionate to people in the area — even if it’s really not from a more macroscopic view of the current market.  The woman on the bus estimated the compensation for single properties to be about $160 K.  In terms of the current market in the Baltimore/ Washington DC area , $160K will not buy very much.  The price itself is a very cheap buy for a business venture by a large global corporation made to single individuals.

Where will these people live after moving from their current homes?  Today, gas prices are making long-distance commutes unfavourable.  A lot of displaced people can’t find better or equal jobs elsewhere or can’t afford the housing where such jobs do exist.

Those people!

(Photo Link)

The expansion of Johns Hopkins, a visible entity in the area, makes a lot of people fear the wiping out of the culture in East Baltimore.  There is a meeting of many heritages and communities there from Greeks to Hispanic and African American populations.  What will happen to these small niches once parking garages and medical management facilities replace the people?

(JHU Newsletter)

If its wasn’t for the fact that I live and work in this city, I would have shrugged off the woman’s reflection of JH business practices as potentially corrupted.  Being liberal is a great thing!  Liberals are seen as more vant garde and therefore more openminded about people and possibilites.  Of course, there is a way for too much of a good thing; to be so openminded that you are easily suggestible to grandiose theories is not good.  Further, having the inability to think logically about issues rather than running on circumstances itself defeats the purpose of liberal thinking as individual intellect.  It’s possible to have a perfectly good (or not) opinion but disengage your audience because of the way you present your ideas.

~ by paperdreamer on July 18, 2008.