Guilty, Until Proven Innocent

Anyone who has followed my politics will know that about the only thing I agree with Noam Chomsky on is the idiocy of 9/11 Truthers.  This recent post on 911 Flogger by Jon Gold once again demonstrates how out of touch the Truthers are, and Jon, relatively speaking, is actually one of the more rational Truthers.  Admittedly that is kind of like being the shortest giant or the most chaste woman in the bordello.  In any case,  Jon actually tries to argue that Noam should be be for the Truthers because if they succeed it will alter our traditional standards of justice, a goal I am not sure even Chomsky would be for, even if it benefited him politically.

Chomsky seems to miss an important point when dismissing 9/11 queries as a waste of energy. If 9/11 can be blown open, then absolutely everything can be challenged, because evidence will exist of the huge scope of the supporting conspiracy.
 In fact, if 9/11 truth were to be universally accepted and its implications digested, then a paradigm may emerge where the burden of proof shifts. It may become the norm that parties whose behavior suggests complicity; have to prove they were NOT implicated in various conspiracies. All of Chomsky’s pet projects would benefit from this. 

 As I have always said, scratch a Truther, find a Fascist.

Update:  I accidentally attributed this post to Jon Gold, read the wrong byline, it was actually posted by some guy at 911 Blogger named Speakingup.  My apologies to Jon for the mistake.  It has got to be embarrassing for him to be associated with the morons on there.