Thank you for proving my point. There is a difference between a conspiracy and a group of people getting together as a political group to achieve their political ends. If you're going to define the NEA as a conspiracy, then the word has lost any reasonable meaning. As to Microsoft, it's a public corporation with announced business plans and goals. That it got caught allegedly "conspiring" (legally, a corporation cannot conspire with its officers) again proves my point. To successfully take over the world, a conspiracy must be large - even economy sized. The larger it is, the more likely it will break down or leak.
Conspiracies - at least the ones being discussed here, are generally secret.
Conspiracy: 1 : the act of conspiring together 2 a : an agreement among conspirators b : a group of conspirators.
Main Entry: con·spire
Pronunciation: k&n-'spIr
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): con·spired; con·spir·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French conspirer, from Latin conspirare to be in harmony, conspire, from com- + spirare to breathe Date: 14th century
transitive senses : PLOT, CONTRIVE
intransitive senses
1 a : to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement
b : SCHEME 2 : to act in harmony toward a common end -- i.e., circumstances conspired to defeat his efforts
And, before you jump all over the second definition, ask yourself - do I really want to argue that anyone working in harmony toward a common end is engaged in a conspiracy? Such that Republicans are conspiring, Libertarians are conspiring, FReepers are conspiring? Lots of luck if you do.