Conspiracy Theories, Inc.

The more i think about this Nick Berg thing, and all the conspiracy theories flying around about it, the more i keep coming back to the same thought.

If (and i can't say either way to this myself) the video really is too bodgy to be real, then the question is what are the most likely explanations. The most simple options seem to be:

a. The CIA, or another similar agency, made a video with so many obvious flaws (perhaps so that no-one would believe a well-resourced intelligence agency would do so bad a job).

b. Nervous prison guards tried to hide a death in custody by drawing the whole world's attention to it with an elaborate mock-up (again, perhaps working on the principle that it's the last thing you'd expect them to do).

c. Some other party made it to implicate either the US or al-Qaeda (i'm starting to hear talk of Mossad and the Iranians tossed about now).

d. A terrorist cell in an occupied territory did a bad edit job on an execution (perhaps to make it look better if the killing didn't go right or they failed to get it on camera, or even cutting the head off an already dead body to make it look a more gruesome death than it was).

It's all conjecture, and it's quite possible we'll never know for sure, but to me the last still seems to be the most plausible explanation (if indeed it is faked), especially in light of who has least to lose from a stunt like this.

Not that i really want to dwell too much on what, at the end of the day, is still someone's son who never came home alive, but with all the speculation going on, i just want to try to look at it logically and get some perspective on it all.

everybody wants something (they never give up)

Inspired by the messages people have been posting lately declaring they will never buy anything or give any business to anyone as a result of spam, i was thinking about this and decided it's a pretty good approach to take to doorknocking, telemarketing and other intrusive advertising in general. This occurred to me the other night on my way up to the bottle shop, as i passed a couple of people going door to door selling something or other. It struck me as quite a neat way to avoid having to give up my precious and limited personal time to someone invading the privacy of my own home to try to sell me something.

Sure enough, by the time i got back home they had reached our door and were waiting for someone to answer. i cruised in the gate, asked what i could do for them and started to get the spiel about whether they could help us save on phone calls etc. That was when i informed them that probably they could, but it didn't matter as we had a strict policy of never buying anything based on telemarketing or door-to-door sales. "Why is that?" they asked, to which i simply told them (with a big friendly smile) it was because we find it intrusive, an invasion of privacy and, quite frankly, we resent it. There was nothing they could say to that but "fair enough", and they smiled bemusedly and left.

i was quite pleased with the way that went, especially when Elaine told me they'd been trying to get her to answer the door by pretending they were someone she knew ("don't you know who this is?") as if that were a fair way to get around anyone trying to impede their god-given right to have their sales spiel heard. If nothing else, it confirmed in my mind that i really have had enough and have no wish to buy anything anyone tries to sell to me that way.

So now, the policy stands, and i'm looking forward to its next application.