Why are some conspiracy theories permissible?

Rush Limbaugh tells his audience that an unnamed, amorphous yet omnipotent "THEY" conspired to create what he calls the "Polar vortex hoax." As if THEY (if there really were a THEY, which there isn't) would have any motive for doing a thing like that.

Yet nobody calls Rush a conspiracy theorist.

People call me a conspiracy theorist because I think that a faction of the CIA (specifically, the one located on floor 2 of the headquarters in Langley) killed JFK.

Mine is considered an outsider opinion. I stand beyond the pale. It is socially acceptable to smirk at people who hold to the view I espouse.

This, despite the fact that the following parties have expressed doubts about the Warren Commission's findings:

-- LBJ (who convened the Commission);

-- the slain president's brother;

-- the slain president's widow;

-- many of the slain president's friends and family members;

-- the wife and mother and children of the accused assassin;

-- Jack Ruby;

-- John Connally and James Tague (the other two men wounded in Dealey Plaza);

--  David Atlee Phillips of the CIA (who, just before dying, confessed his involvement to his brother);

-- any number of witnesses who testified before the Commission;

-- the House Select Committee on Assassinatons;

-- a surprisingly large number of famous politicians (including Walter Mondale, Richard Schweiker and Gary Hart);

-- at least three members of the Warren Commission;

-- and perhaps even Earl Warren himself. (Yes, there is some evidence suggesting that Warren did not believe the Warren Commission. I may write further about this matter in another post, if anyone is interested.)

If you stand with the people listed above, you will be considered an oddball.

But if you tell millions of people that a nameless, nearly-omnipotent THEY created a "Polar Vortex hoax," no-one will call you a paranoid wacko. No-one will call you a conspiracy buff.

On a related note: The most tireless promoter of the Warren Commission's conclusions is a guy named John McAdams, who teaches political science at Marquette University. Naturally, he was featured by Time Magazine when a representative of that journal visited a recent JFK assassination symposium in Pittsburgh.

Here's the part Time won't tell you: McAdams is himself a conspiracy theorist, of a sort that Rush would find laudable.

To be specific, McAdams is a "policy adviser" with the Heartland Institute, a Libertarian think tank that gets a lot of play on Fox News. Not long ago, I put together a video exposing the Heartland Institute, best-known for promoting the interests of Big Tobacco. Heartland funds lectures and media appearances by Jay Lehr, a convicted criminal who falsely poses as an expert in climate science. (Lehr also tells some audiences that he's an "economist," even though he's no such thing.)

Heartland promotes massive conspiracy theories.

My video contains footage of Lehr blathering on about how all environmental groups throughout the world are "socialist led" and engaged in a plot to "socialize the world." Heartland believes that global warming is a hoax by red-tinged conspirators who want to control even the most minute aspects of our lives. Even the CIA -- which Heartland apparently considers a Marxist organization -- is part of this damnable Bolshevik plot.

Think I'm exaggerating? Take a look at my video, starting around the 9:45 mark (embedded below).

Heartland is, in short, a playground for paranoids. And Heartland is Professor McAdams' baby.

(McAdams also has been known to engage in identity theft. That's a long story which I may tell on another occasion.)

On the issue of global warming, McAdams and Limbaugh seem perfectly willing to countenance what I would consider a truly ludicrous conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, a mainstream journal like Time would never call those two men "conspiracy buffs" -- in fact, journalists portray Professor McAdams as an exemplar of rationality.

Why does our society maintain this bizarre double standard?