When viewed "through the lens of historical pattern recognition" you ARE NOT CRAZY. [View all]

Whether Butler, or this latest "incident" was, or was not LIHOP (intentionally lax security inviting crisis) or somehow engineered (mentally unstable people or members of a resistance CAN BE, and HAVE BEEN intentionally radicalized in the service of the counter-resistance), we will likely never know. So, absent exposure, asserting "staged" makes one a "conspiracy nut."

Because my first thought on hearing about events at the WHCA dinner was "too well timed with all-time polling lows to be real," I am apparently a conspiracy nut.

I had been kicking my "nuttiness" a bit as I read the "staged" and "STFU about it" posts here. Then I saw Figarosmom's post of Richard Teresi's latest.

Richard Teresi's message is an essential one. Perhaps we will never know which POV is true, but the fact that my initial reaction to the latest "incident" was "something is seriously wrong here -- too convenient" no longer bothers me. Even if just a gut instinct that is somehow unequivocally proven to be wrong, when viewed "through the lens of historical pattern recognition" that gut instinct is NOT CRAZY."