KENNEDY ASSASSINATION AND OCCAM’S RAZOR

           Most people allow their feelings, beliefs, and desires to control their understanding of facts. This is especially true of conspiracy theories. Such theories often arise out of thin air without the support of any empirical evidence. They satisfy the need of people for some explanation of a phenomenon for which there appears to be no explanation. I maintain that the powerful need people have for an explanation is akin to religious belief. People do not want to believe that things happen for no reason. They do not want to believe that we live in a random universe and that we are subject to arbitrary forces which have no real meaning or purpose. They make-up stories and myths to explain things that they do not understand.

A far more intellectually honest approach to such questions is Occam’s Razor. Occam’s Razor is a principle of logic developed by the philosopher, William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347). Occam’s Razor states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected. The simplest available theory need not be most correct, but in the absence of any countervailing evidence, it is the one which should be accepted. In other words, we should not create a complicated conspiracy theory for the Kennedy assassination unless it is supported by sound empirical evidence.

I am a retired attorney who practiced trial law for 37 years. I know that there are many (perhaps 100) conspiracy theories for the shooting of President Kennedy, but, so far as I know, none of them is supported by the kind of evidence that would be upheld in a court of law. The simplest theory is that Oswald was the lone gunman and that he acted solely on his own in shooting President Kennedy. Using Occam’s Razor, that is the one we should adopt.

            I acknowledge that it is entirely possible that the assassination of President Kennedy was the result of a conspiracy and even that there were more than one shooter in Dallas that day. But the mere possibility of such a scenario does not make it worthy of our unwavering belief. Anything is possible, and some of the conspiracy theories (i.e., it was carried-out by aliens from another planet) stretch the limits of allowable absurdity. Author Vincent Bugliosi reports that: “At one time or another, doubters of the lone gunman theory have accused 42 groups, 82 assassins and 214 people of being involved in the assassination.” CNN says, “That's a lot of paranoia.”

Logic and sound reason do not allow us to hitch our belief to some theory merely because it satisfies our political, religious, or philosophical hungering. While some theories are more intelligent than others, none of them has provided sufficient proof to support its conclusions. Among the leading theories that have been debunked by rational investigators are the theories that: a) LBJ was behind it; b) the "military industrial complex" did it; or c) the Mob did it. Among the more respected theories are that Oswald acted alone as part of an unknown conspiracy, or that the CIA was behind it. Even these theories, however, do not provide the kind of evidence that would lend them serious credibility. 

You would think that the absence of hard evidence would doom all of the many theories to universal disbelief, but that is not the case. Approximately 75% of Americans believe that the Kennedy assassination was the result of a conspiracy and that there were more than one shooter who participated. To me this is a discouraging example of the fact that most people do not think rationally.

It is reasonable to keep an open mind as to the possibility that Oswald was merely part of a vast conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy, but until someone comes forth with empirical, scientific, historical, hard as nails evidence, we should stick to Occam’s Razor.

WHAT ARE WE

Now in the aftermath of the shutdown of our government and the threatened denial of the ability to pay our national debts we must ask ourselves not only how we can avoid such crises in the future but what kind of nation we choose to be. In this brief time before the storm returns to unsettle our public affairs we should look back at the desolation wrought by a few angry zealots and decide whether we are a people of dignity, compassion, and reason, or a disunited collection of states and voters quivering before the shrill voices of nihilism.

Crying out in anger and resentment, the voices of right-wing bitterness would have the world believe that there is something weak and tired about liberalism, something pathetic about the belief that government has a duty not only to protect its people but to support them in their quest for a better life. Those voices would allow the children of the poor among us suffer from hunger and disease, rather than let them benefit from our government’s ability to ease their suffering.

We need to decide whether to allow those voices to overwhelm our national discourse or to stand-up against them and speak-out for the brotherhood and decency we are supposed to represent. They would have us believe that there is something shameful in our desire to provide medical care and medicine for the poor among us, ease the financial burden of older citizens, free women to control their own bodies and assume their rightful equality in all phases of our public life, give citizenship and dignity to people who come here from other nations, grant respect and civil rights to gays and transgender populations, and do the many other things called for by liberalism.

There is something about the Tea Party people that is more than just narrow, provincial, or hidebound. There is something vicious and cruel. I believe that the Tea Party extremists in the House of Representatives, and the people who have elected and supported them, have wanted not only to shut-down the government, but to cause it to fail. The scenario they favor is like that of some European or South American country where internal pressure from political extremists causes the downfall of the government. They would have welcomed a default by America on its debt and they would have cheered an economic collapse. They believe that only such a catastrophe would open the way for the take-over of the government by right-wing forces favorable to their cause. In this respect they are the opposite of patriots.

             They realize that they cannot achieve their aims by way of elections, so they want to do it by way of political terrorism. They represent a minority in Congress, so they do not have the votes to accomplish their goals. Their hope is that by gumming-up the works they can force the leadership to avoid the time-tested method of compromise. They prefer the fanatical methods of confrontation , conflict, and defiance. They intimidate the “moderate” Republicans by threatening to have more extreme candidates defeat them in the primaries.

            The time has finally come for ordinary Americans to recognize the threat provided by these extremists and vote them out of office. The time has come for all fair-minded Americans to speak-out against the malice these people represent, and to brush them off the table of our national discourse.