You Can't Handle the 9/11 Truth

David Weigel | June 29, 2007

C.D. Steltzer reports on the inclusion of a 9/11 "alternative theory" in Project Censored's list of overlooked stories—a decision that prompted two of the project's biggest names to jump ship.

Judges Robert Jensen, a journalism professor, and Norman Solomon, a syndicated columnist, severed their ties with the national media watchdog group over its decision last year to highlight the controversial theories of physics professor Steven Jones, a critic of the 9/11 Commission findings.

Jones hypothesizes that the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the World Trade Center towers was the result of controlled detonation of military-grade explosives rather than fires caused by two passenger jets that slammed into the buildings. His views, which are available online at Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice (stj911.org), have been largely passed over or dismissed by mainstream news outlets.
“This isn’t the first time that judges have resigned at Project Censored over a story we’ve covered,” says Peter Phillips, director of the program.

It's almost surprising that it took this long for PC to trip and fall into the swamp. ~~I can't seem to find it online, but,~~ In 2002 my old j-school colleague Matt Palmquist had the definitive takedown of Project Censored in the SF Weekly (San Francisco). In any case this is a good opportunity to share the most bizarre piece of 9/11 performance art I've found so far:

Maybe Garance Franke-Ruta was right...

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|6.29.07 @ 3:19PM|#

I would ask them, "If our government is so powerful and all-knowing why haven't they put you in GITMO yet for even asking this question?"

|6.29.07 @ 3:21PM|#

yes, "Project Censored" ...
Our local alternative shit-rag publishes this list every year.
Since when is "censored" defined as "fringe stories that nobody wants to read"? Isn't the fact that "Project Censored" publishes the stories every year proof that there is no censorship?
I hate people who throw around that word like turds and expect people not to smell their shit. Censorship is what governments do, fucktards.

|6.29.07 @ 3:24PM|#

Mmmmmm, girls in bikinis.
I got through to the end before I realized my speakers were off. Doubt that it matters much.

"Jones hypothesizes that the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the World Trade Center towers was the result of controlled detonation of military-grade explosives rather than fires caused by two passenger jets that slammed into the buildings."

Wow! The jets just happened to slam into the towers just as the government blew them up. With all of the buildings in Manhattan, that's a pretty amazing coincidence!

I got through to the end before I realized my speakers were off. Doubt that it matters much.

Oh it matters. Your way was by far superior

ed|6.29.07 @ 3:25PM|#

Most people think "censorship" means somebody refusing to provide you with a soapbox.

|6.29.07 @ 3:28PM|#

So ummm... If you show up on a beach with a thousand dollars worth of video equipment, will hot babes just do whatever you tell them to when you point the camera at them?

|6.29.07 @ 3:29PM|#

So ummm... If you show up on a beach with a thousand dollars worth of video equipment, will hot babes just do whatever you tell them to when you point the camera at them?

Yes, haven't you ever heard of Girls Gone Wild?

Jimmy|6.29.07 @ 3:31PM|#

Never go to the beach in SF unless you want to be bombarded with bikini-clad girls who want to "spread the truth." I don't think I could endure their "truth" even if they were bikini-clad. Who else thinks you could get any one of those girls to say something like "Hitler was cute." as long as you shoved a camera and microphone in their face?

Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 3:33PM|#

Reminds me of that Futurama episode:

President Truman: Fellas, this visit's top secret. No one's to know about it, except the senior officers, the scientists and a single conspiracy nutter no one will believe.
[A man with a camera nods, laughs and takes a photo.]

|6.29.07 @ 3:34PM|#

I'm not sure that the concept of "censorship" is so cut and dry as to refer only to the government preventing something from being said or printed. I think the general definition can be expanded somewhat to refer to any time a powerful person or organization takes steps to prevent a non-powerful group from publishing information, especially if done on ideological grounds.

This is not to say that every cry of censorship is legitimate, of course.

|6.29.07 @ 3:35PM|#

"Jones hypothesizes that the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of the World Trade Center towers was the result of controlled detonation of military-grade explosives rather than fires caused by two passenger jets that slammed into the buildings."

The stupidity evinced by this hypothesis makes me sad.

|6.29.07 @ 3:36PM|#

A plane didn't hit the pentagon, it was a missile! I have proof! Here is a quote from a witness:

"I saw this plane to the north hit the pentagon."

OMG! The official "story" is that a plane hit the pentagon from the south! But that witness says that isn't true. So it must have been a missile. Truth!!!!

[this post brought to you by the letters 'F' and 'U']

|6.29.07 @ 3:40PM|#

I think the general definition can be expanded somewhat to refer to any time a powerful person or organization takes steps to prevent a non-powerful group from publishing information

Fair point as far as Webster is concerned. But in a constitutional and legal context, censorship does not mean "not providing me with airtime or a printing press for my views." Especially salient now, because of the Internet, when any sack of puke can get his fatuous opinions posted for the whole world to see.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. As long as good-looking chicks in bikinis want to "spread the truth," America will survive both Al Qaida and Dick Cheney.

|6.29.07 @ 3:42PM|#

I think the general definition can be expanded somewhat to refer to any time a powerful person or organization takes steps to prevent a non-powerful group from publishing information, especially if done on ideological grounds.

As long as you don't consider ignoring the non-powerful group censorship, and you include pure unadulterated bullshit under your definition of information then fine.

Randolph Carter|6.29.07 @ 3:47PM|#

And Dan T. explains the difference between marginalization and censorship. Thanks!

|6.29.07 @ 3:51PM|#

Fair point as far as Webster is concerned. But in a constitutional and legal context, censorship does not mean "not providing me with airtime or a printing press for my views." Especially salient now, because of the Internet, when any sack of puke can get his fatuous opinions posted for the whole world to see.

But here's the problem - a small number of companies control most of the "credible" major media in this country. If some random guy posts on his blog that he's found proof that 9/11 was an inside job, he's dismissed as a crackpot (if the story is seen at all). If Time Warner, GE, Disney, etc. report it, it's suddenly a legitimate news story.

So when the mainstream media is consolidated as it is now, it basically means that a small group of people are choosing what becomes "news" and what is ignored. And they're just as likely to make those choices based on their business interests as they are the actual newsworthiness of the story.

Whether or not this amounts to "censorship" is a matter of opinion, but there is some truth to the idea that the powerful have the means to at least partially control what information is taken seriously in the public realm.

Urkobold™|6.29.07 @ 3:52PM|#

THE URKOBOLD KNOWS THE POWER OF THE BIKINI. URKOBOLD WILL ILLUSTRATE THIS POINT WITH DIALOG:

HOTTIE HEATHER (RUNNING HER FINGERS OVER HER OVERFLOWING BIKINI TOP): "THE TRUTH WILL SET THESE FREE."

PERSON WITH THE INITIALS, "VM": UM, OKAY, WHAT'S THE TRUTH?

HOTTIE HEATHER: "9/11 WAS A GOVERNMENT PLOT."

PERSON WITH THE INITIALS, "VM": "9/11 WAS A GOVERNMENT PLOT."

HOTTIE HEATHER (REMOVES TOP): "GOOD BOY."

|6.29.07 @ 3:52PM|#

And Dan T. explains the difference between marginalization and censorship. Thanks!

I suppose, although in practice it might be more of a distinction without a difference.

|6.29.07 @ 3:57PM|#

I don't think these girls could convince me to believe 9/11 was an inside job anymore than a hot chick in a bar who is a paid representative of Corona would make me change from Sierra Nevada to Corona.

thoreau|6.29.07 @ 4:01PM|#

Dan,

There is a very real difference between marginalization and censorship, the difference being that those who disobey censors can easily find themselves in a prison cell.

However, I will grant you this much: If the practice of marginalization is used to excess, that may not be compatible with an innovative, open, productive, and prosperous society. A certain amount of marginalization is probably necessary (for instance, a conference of scientists needs to be able to debate the interpretation of complicated data without letting some creationist weirdo monopolize the debate), but too much marginalization will harm society.

Marginalization, like most other useful things, should be done in moderation.

|6.29.07 @ 4:06PM|#

some random guy posts on his blog that he's found proof that 9/11 was an inside job, he's dismissed as a crackpot (if the story is seen at all). If Time Warner, GE, Disney, etc. report it, it's suddenly a legitimate news story.

Oh, really? The crackpots sure had an easy time convincing 34 percent of Americans that it was an "inside job" without the benefit of CBS, Time/Warner. And that, despite the fact that Popular Mechanics bitch-slapped the shit out of their conspiracy theories one by one.
And you're right, CBS has never been known to air such unfounded things. Like Dan Rather's "proof" that Bush dodged the draft, or that running a car into the side of a truck will cause it to BLOW THE FUCK UP.
Yes, Dan T., your points are dead on! Dead-christing-on!

|6.29.07 @ 4:07PM|#

Marginalize marginalization!

There is a very real difference between marginalization and censorship, the difference being that those who disobey censors can easily find themselves in a prison cell.

That is true. Certainly from the speaker's perspective there is a difference, maybe from the audience POV not so much.

Generally speaking, however, I'll concede the point that the stories on the Project Censorship website are not technically being censored. But I don't know if they're being truly marginalized either - more like just ignored or downplayed.

|6.29.07 @ 4:09PM|#

Just for the record, that's Pacific Beach in San Diego.

|6.29.07 @ 4:10PM|#

Like a good little socialist, Dan T redefines words with strong pre-existing connotations, to suit his purposes.

Why not redefine "freedom" as obeying the authorities without question? That will take care of a lot of the conflict between freedom and security, right?

TLB|6.29.07 @ 4:11PM|#

For some reason, I haven't been able to access TAPPED for several weeks, and I honestly miss GFR's musings.

I get my GFR fix by watching this video.

|6.29.07 @ 4:11PM|#

Oh, really? The crackpots sure had an easy time convincing 34 percent of Americans that it was an "inside job" without the benefit of CBS, Time/Warner. And that, despite the fact that Popular Mechanics bitch-slapped the shit out of their conspiracy theories one by one.

You're kind of illustrating my point - the fact that a good percentage of Americans suspect government involvement in 9/11 doesn't matter; since the mainstream media adheres to the offical story, anybody who thinks otherwise is dismissed out of hand as a crackpot.

|6.29.07 @ 4:12PM|#

Here's a link to the SF Weekly article to which David is referring:

and this page has some follow-up on it.

|6.29.07 @ 4:13PM|#

I once had a hot chick try to rope me into scientology. Keep in mind this was back during my slut period. It still didn't work. I would have done a lot of things to bed that girl, but I did have my pride. Needless to say, it was another night alone.

(11 was a liberal plot to keep Bush from fightin' for our rights in Iraq and fixing our broken economy. Let freedom ring.

Like a good little socialist, Dan T redefines words with strong pre-existing connotations, to suit his purposes.

Kind of like how you just redefined "socialist"?

Urkobold™|6.29.07 @ 4:14PM|#

CESAR, YOU FOOL! YOU DON'T KNOW THE POWER OF THE HOT SIDE. IT'S EASY TO POST YOUR DEFIANCE ON THE INTERNET, BUT TRY TO DEFY THE TRUTH WHEN PERSONALLY CONFRONTED BY HOTTIE HEATHER'S HYPNOTICALLY HEAVING BOSOM. YOU'LL BE DRINKING CORONA BEFORE YOU KNOW IT.

WITH LIME.

PapayaSF|6.29.07 @ 4:20PM|#

A good conspiracy theory is logically consistent, but the 9/11 ones aren't. If you're going to blow up the buildings with explosives, why bother coordinating hijackings? Just blow up the buildings: there's less that can go wrong, you'll kill a lot more people, and you can still blame it on terrorists.

I have the same problem with JFK conspiracies: if you've got a vast conspiracy in the government that's going to cover up the investigation, autopsy, etc., why bother shooting the guy in public? Why not just slip something into his morning coffee? I once argued this online, and the only response was that They "wanted to send a message," but he couldn't explain why it was in the interests of a secret conspiracy to ever send such a public message.

|6.29.07 @ 4:22PM|#

The government can't keep even the simplest of secrets secret. Think secret CIA prisons etc. Who in their right mind can imagine our government, in all their bureaucratic excellence, could possibly pull off a caper like 9/11?

Gentlemen we have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government
Do you still think that jet fuel brought down the World Trade Center?
(Laughter)
Does anybody else see a problem here?
If the government has nothing to hide why are they so afraid to answer a few questions?
This story does not add up

I'm on a mission to never forget
3,000 people that I've never met
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies X3
Surpise surprise

Lies Lies

I'm on a mission to dig up the truth
You think we're stupid and there's no proof
Well let me tell you that the time has come
To pull the trigger on the smoking gun
Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies X3
Surpise surprise

Lies Lies Lies Lies

Don't listen to me listen to your head
Don't listen
Don't listen to anything, they've said
Don't listen

Lies Lies Lies Lies

America has been hijacked
Not by Al Qaeda, not by Bin Laden
But by a group of tyrants
That should be of great concern to all Americans

I'm on a mission to bring out the facts
You got your stories but they all have cracks
Misinformation, lies and deceit
What made you think that we were all asleep
Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies Lies X3
Surpise surprise

Lies Lies Lies Lies

Don't listen to me listen to your head
Don't listen
Don't listen to anything, they've said
Don't listen

Lies Lies Lies Lies

Don't listen to me listen to your head
Lies Lies Lies Lies

|6.29.07 @ 4:24PM|#

I have the same problem with JFK conspiracies: if you've got a vast conspiracy in the government that's going to cover up the investigation, autopsy, etc., why bother shooting the guy in public? Why not just slip something into his morning coffee? I once argued this online, and the only response was that They "wanted to send a message," but he couldn't explain why it was in the interests of a secret conspiracy to ever send such a public message.

The message would be to other government officals: this is what happens if you don't do as you're told.

And let's be fair, if you ask what Oswald's motives supposedly were the best you'll get is "he was crazy".

|6.29.07 @ 4:29PM|#

if you ask what Oswald's motives supposedly were the best you'll get is "he was crazy".

Funny, Dan T., that's exactly what this one guy told the Discovery Channel. Can't remember who it was ... oh yeah, Oswald's brother.

|6.29.07 @ 4:32PM|#

''The crackpots sure had an easy time convincing 34 percent of Americans that it was an "inside job"''
The crackpots most certainly did not convince that many people. I suspect that at most it's 10%.

They keep citing a poll, but I have not seen that poll. It was a poll commissioned by a Truther. That's about as reliable as a poll commissioned by RJR saying cigarettes don't cause cancer. But beyond that, what are the actual poll questions? What answers were available for the pollee to choose from? What was the sampling used? What other questions were asked? What leading statement was made prior to the crucial poll question being asked?

Polls are nothing more than a way to lie to the public. I've been on the receiving end of national polls before, and they are NOT objective and unbiased. They do their damnedest to lead you to an "acceptable" set of answers. Do not believe any poll.

|6.29.07 @ 4:34PM|#

"Lee's political demeanor was simply a method of getting attention. He wanted to stand out, no matter what the crowd was. He was going to be different from the crowd. ... If everybody had been Marxist, he would have been an American, vice versa. You know, Russian, whatever, he would have been opposite to stand out."
-- Robert Oswald, to Fox News

T|6.29.07 @ 4:35PM|#

PapayaSF,

I once argued this online, and the only response was that They "wanted to send a message," but he couldn't explain why it was in the interests of a secret conspiracy to ever send such a public message.

So Johnson would do WTF he was told. The message is "We can have you whacked out in broad daylight in front of god and thousands of witnesses and nothing will come of it. Play ball or get your head assploded."

You ain't been far enough in amongst the conspiracy wackos, my man. It's a strange and wondrous world, although deeply unsettling if you stay too long. When you start seeing meaning in every random coincidence it's time to get out. It was my side interest for a number of years until it started to affect my thinking.

|6.29.07 @ 4:38PM|#

The message would be to other government officals: this is what happens if you don't do as you're told.

And let's be fair, if you ask what Oswald's motives supposedly were the best you'll get is "he was crazy".

You fools, Kennedy is still alive. He's on the same island as Elvis, Jim Morrison, Hitler*, Nessie and Bigfoot. If you read the Weekly World News you'd know this stuff.

*Actually, it's only Hitler's brain that is still alive.

|6.29.07 @ 4:40PM|#

THE BIG LIE.

Yes, there is a big lie and this is it: To bring a structure straight down on itself requires carefully placed shaped charges with carefully timed detonations. Only demolition experts can achieve this.

It keeps the competition down. But it also, if believed, is a false premise that makes 9-11 conspiracy theories easier to swallow.

|6.29.07 @ 4:55PM|#

40-odd comments on a 9/11 Truth thread and no Dave W?

Someone's slipping...

|6.29.07 @ 4:56PM|#

That was almost as fun as watching girls in bikinis shooting machine guns (or two lesbians)

|6.29.07 @ 5:04PM|#

Conspiracy theories belong in the realm of sociology and psychology, not journalism. In order that we may find the reasons that they are such fucking brainwashed idiot mondo-losers.

PapayaSF|6.29.07 @ 6:01PM|#

The message would be to other government officals: this is what happens if you don't do as you're told.

The message is "We can have you whacked out in broad daylight in front of god and thousands of witnesses and nothing will come of it. Play ball or get your head assploded."

Sorry, I don't buy it. This is a secret conspiracy, which is always vulnerable to leaks, as Kevin McCambridge points out. Sweeping public threats just aren't their m.o., and would draw attention to themselves. Better to do your work quietly and maybe send a few anonymous or whispered threats when you really need to.

Dave W.|6.29.07 @ 6:31PM|#

If you're going to blow up the buildings with explosives, why bother coordinating hijackings?

So nobody studies the residue on and damage to the beams too closely.

Disclaimer: I think only wtc7 was brought down by explosives, but if you really are looking for a logical, plausible reason from the perspective of a conspiracy theorist, there it is.

I have the same problem with JFK conspiracies: if you've got a vast conspiracy in the government that's going to cover up the investigation, autopsy, etc., why bother shooting the guy in public?

Because if he dies in private, there will be public hearings under oath. Lots of them. Do you have any idea what happens to secrets when people start going under oath at public hearings and must withstand rigorous cross examination. Think Watergate. Think Lewinskygate.

Disclaimer: I think Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone, but if you really are looking for a logical, plausible reason from the perspective of a conspiracy theorist, there it is.

Dave W.|6.29.07 @ 6:36PM|#

40-odd comments on a 9/11 Truth thread and no Dave W?

These are MIHOPpers. I am a LIHOPper.

Pul-eeze -- this is as grievous mixing up Republicans and Libertarians.

thoreau|6.29.07 @ 6:38PM|#

In regard to that video, I just want to say that I only read Hit and Run for the articles.

|6.29.07 @ 8:13PM|#

Dave, you've posted on threads where MIHOPpers were the subject and you know it. Your PERSPECTIVE may have been that of a LIHOPper, but that's not the issue.

Nice grab at victimhood, though.

So the obvious question arising from your first disclaimer is "how is WTC7's (alleged) implosion compatible with how WTC1 & 2 came down, particularly given the damage imparted on it by the previously fallen towers?"

ed|6.29.07 @ 8:50PM|#

Is there a Special Olympics for arguing on the internet?

doug|6.29.07 @ 9:57PM|#

Yeah, the biggest attack on homeland soil ever, and there not gonna test the residue on the beams too closely... yeah right! That's retarded. Just like 1/4 of the population... retarded.

The Wine Commonsewer®|6.29.07 @ 10:11PM|#

Had a friend whose apartment building pancaked down as a result of the Northridge earthquake. Looked just like a pro had brought it down in a controlled demo. Just sayin'.

Secondly, I don't buy conspiracy theories precisely because nobody can keep a secret. Everybody knows who is sleeping with the boss why do you think pulling off a monumental........

Auggghhhhh, sometimes a cigar is just an Occam's Razor.

The Wine Commonsewer®|6.29.07 @ 10:52PM|#

And speaking of guys who throw the term retard around like it was an insult, where the heck is Dimitri these days?

Now that I know his real name I can't remember his fake name. I blame CRS.

PapayaSF|6.29.07 @ 11:43PM|#

Because if he dies in private, there will be public hearings under oath. Lots of them.

So you're arguing that if had been announced that JFK had died of a heart attack, there would be more public scrutiny and investigation than if he were shot in public by a wacky ex-defector to the USSR...? Sorry, but that's less believable than these conspiracy theories.

|6.29.07 @ 11:49PM|#

There have been genuine conspiracies in history eg. The Lincoln assassination*. But none of them involved the many hundreds of people that a 9/11 plot involved. The two largest I can remember - the July 20, 1944 plot against Hitler and the assassination of Julius Ceasar - were both almost betrayed before their climactic events. The most notable thing about the July 20, 1944 was the poor execution and planning, despite the involvement of many highly trained military officers, supposedly expert in contingency planning.

If there had been a 9/11 conspiracy, virtually every detail would be public knowledge by now.

*Yes, John Wilkes Booth acted alone, but the plot also extended to taking out Seward (and others, IIRC). I'm not sure whether Mary Seurat should have swung or not.

Paul|6.30.07 @ 12:10AM|#

theories of physics professor Steven Jones

Next thing we know, he'll start babbling about the global warming "tipping point". Nutbags.

Michael Moope|6.30.07 @ 10:21AM|#

Had a friend whose apartment building pancaked down as a result of the Northridge earthquake. Looked just like a pro had brought it down in a controlled demo. Just sayin'.

Your friend's apartment building was imploded by government agents at the same time that other government agents started the Northridge earthquake.

The reason that George Bush & Co. orchestrated the 9/11 attacks was because creating fear of terrorists worked for Bill Clinton in 1995. Of course, I'm not in any way implying that Bill Clinton was involved in Oklahoma City Bombing. At least, no hot chicks in bikinis have come forth with any evidence.

Scooby|6.30.07 @ 10:35AM|#

''The crackpots sure had an easy time convincing 34 percent of Americans that it was an "inside job"''
The crackpots most certainly did not convince that many people. I suspect that at most it's 10%.

They keep citing a poll, but I have not seen that poll. It was a poll commissioned by a Truther.

I'm pretty sure that the poll asked something like "Do you believe the official story, in it's entirety?" Any no answer, whether based on conspiracy theories or "I think they are leaving out some embarassing official slip-ups", is grouped in with the MIHOP "inside job" idiocy.

Scooby|6.30.07 @ 10:42AM|#

The reason that George Bush & Co. orchestrated the 9/11 attacks was because creating fear of terrorists worked for Bill Clinton in 1995. Of course, I'm not in any way implying that Bill Clinton was involved in Oklahoma City Bombing. At least, no hot chicks in bikinis have come forth with any evidence.

Alex Jones got his start peddling Waco & OKC conspiracy theorist crap on public access cable. If you listen to him, Barbara Bush and Hillary Clinton took a weekend trip to rural Oklahoma to mix up ANFO in the back of a Ryder truck, and George Sr. and QE II were the getaway drivers. I'm not sure what the Rockefellers and the Rothchilds were up to, but I'm sure it was no good.

|6.30.07 @ 1:24PM|#

THE BIG LIE.

Yes, there is a big lie and this is it: To bring a structure straight down on itself requires carefully placed shaped charges with carefully timed detonations. Only demolition experts can achieve this.

To expand that thought a little further, it's not like the collapse of either tower was that "controlled". Huge sections, up to six stories high (long), fell outwards from them. A couple of them hit WTC 7, tearing large chunks of it down including critical interior columns.

I know that if I had hired a demolition company to take down a building that belonged to me and they did it as clumsily as the conspirators on 9/11 did they would be hearing from my lawyers, Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish, and Short PA.

|6.30.07 @ 1:28PM|#

As to the JFK assassination, why if the CIA (FBI or whoever) wanted him out of office would they not simply have exposed his sexual exploits and health condition. The voters at the time would certainly have sent him packing in the next election.

Kevin|7.2.07 @ 3:57AM|#

Self censorship is also a form of censorship. If the mainstream media is voluntarily refusing to mention certain questions and facts that too is a kind of censorship.
Curious choice of video... try looking up "9/11 Coincidences","Zeitgeist","Loose Change", or many other videos and websites that give a government culpability in the 9/11 attacks a more serious looking into.

Urkobold™|7.2.07 @ 9:36AM|#

THOREAU,

THE URKOBOLD SEES THAT YOU RECALL A RECENT LOBSTER GIRL POSTING AS WELL. INDEED, REASON IS ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE. ASSUMING THAT ONE IS MALE, OF COURSE.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements