Okay, I read this article twice and I still think to myself, What a joke1 That whole setup about how this guy never used the internet before 2004 was almost amusing, like I’m going to read that and think to myself, wow, here’s somebody totally outside the box… an old school kind of guy… speaking my language, I really identify with him!!
Like I said, almost amusing, save for the fact that the time I spent reading it is time I’ll never get back. The fact is, this article could be written by anybody possessing the vast knowledge required to type “google.com” into their browser’s address bar. I commend Mr. Moran for finding the strength and wherewithal.
Still, the matter of reason does not escape Mr. Moran’s piece. Although the article does accurately define the conspiracy theorists’ failure to answer the “why”, the article itself features that very flaw. To what end is this information useful, aside from a childish “told you so” attitude? How does this article stimulate me, the reader, in a positive sense? Is stirring debate amongst a mindless internet population of moot opinion somehow supposed to enhance the human experience?
Say whatever you will, you’re only saying it. Only by doing are things done. Remember, it’s the small things in life that define the biggest degree of character- that somebody would deny their own name speaks more volume than their proof of citizenship. Using nominalizations, (deceptive motivation through the act of using verbs as nouns, i.e., Change America Needs) simply points to how easily people are manipulated and willing to displace blame, (i.e. Americans Need TO change.)
