We take in what information we can through the filters we've created for ourselves, and ultimately we hear what we want to hear.

A friend of mine pointed out my own filter set shortly after the attack on September 11th. Because he has seen many instances of government cover-ups and other dubious practices, he was inclined to suspect complicity from our federal government in the attack. Because I am a bit jaded on conspiracy theories, I was (and remain) skeptical of his theories.

He brought up the commonly floated idea that maybe FDR knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen, anyway, in an effort to accomplish a political objective that was not attainable, otherwise -- namely, engaging the US in the war in Europe. I noted that I was skeptical of *that* theory, as well. Then he brought up the point: what if there was evidence? There is some rather vague evidence, as it is, and I told him that I'm not swayed. What if the evidence was stronger? What if we knew that someone had intercepted a Japanese transmission on the subject and reported it to his superiors? Wouldn't convince me. What if we had evidence that his superiors brought it to the attention of a General? Still skeptical. And, so on.

This made me consider a very interesting point: exactly what evidence would it take to sway me that there was, indeed, government complicity in the attack on Pearl Harbor? It would have to be *Very Strong* evidence. HUGE. Why? Because I am dubious of those kinds of scenarios.

Whereas, it would take only a suggestion to get my friend to consider the possibility a *near certainty*. What would it take to convince him that there was no government complicity? An amazing amount. I mean, the evidence would have to be HUGE that other forces were at work, and that the Powers That Be were isolated from participation in the events that led up to the incident in question.

And so we come to the alleged evidence in the case of the so-called "smoking gun tape" of Bin Laden. I knew before it was released that the biggest issue after it was released would be that many people would claim it was a fake. It was inevitable. It's like the Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman murders. There's a segment of the population that will always believe that O. J. Simpson was innocent, no matter how much proof comes to light. O. J. could confess on national TV, and these people would believe he had been coerced, that the confession was fraudulent and a hoax.

Had I been the President of the United States during these trying times, I wonder if I would have released the Osama Bin Laden video tape to the public. I think I would not have. As it is, I expected that releasing it would only add to the mythos that already surrounds Bin Laden; that those who don't believe he was involved would yell "Fraud", and those who already do believe he was involved would remain entrenched in their belief. So, what purpose would it (did it) serve to release the tape? Rather than fan the flames, I think I would have kept it under wraps. Maybe trot it out if Bin Laden ever came to trial, but not before that. By releasing it with the other evidence during a trial, a more compelling and complete picture might have been presented. I don't think I'd have put it out in isolation.

Skeptics on either side of the "is he/isn't he guilty" debate will not be swayed. Ever. I think I'd have just let go of trying to convince the skeptics. Instead, I'd would simply seek getting the best analysis of the data I could to make sure that I'm on the right path toward doing the right things with the right people and against the right people.

Before I go, just one more thing:

O.J. KILLED NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON AND RON GOLDMAN AND GOT AWAY WITH MURDER!

So there.