I knew nothing about the late Charles Krauthammer before reading “Things That Matter”, a collection of hand-picked essays and columns he has written oI knew nothing about the late Charles Krauthammer before reading “Things That Matter”, a collection of hand-picked essays and columns he has written over the course of his 30-plus-year career as a syndicated columnist at The Washington Post, political pundit, and a psychiatrist.
The only thing I had heard about him—-indeed, what initially attracted me to his writing—-was the fact that he was a conservative who, in his few final years before his death in 2018, continually maintained a loathing and disgust for Donald Trump. (https://whyy.org/articles/rip-charles...)
That alone was enough for me to give him a try. And I’m glad I did.
While I don’t think I agreed at all with a majority of his politics, I nevertheless found him to be intelligent and humorous and compassionate in his writing. Even when excoriating people he didn’t like, such as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, he was never mean-spirited, and he always made it clear that he disagreed with and disliked the policies and not the person.
His was a spirit of true old-fashioned gentlemanly political criticism that is not seen anymore, certainly not amongst his other conservative pundits and bigmouths like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Tucker Carlson, and the late Rush Limbaugh.
I think it’s important to read books by authors that you may not agree with or are not aligned, politically, with. It helps to broaden one’s political viewpoints and promotes intellectual growth. To my fellow liberal friends: if you are looking for a differing viewpoint, reading Krauthammer may be a good place to start....more
The frat-boy hijinks of the Trump White House—-especially the ridiculously disgusting love triangle between Rob Porter, Hope Hicks, and Corey LewandowThe frat-boy hijinks of the Trump White House—-especially the ridiculously disgusting love triangle between Rob Porter, Hope Hicks, and Corey Lewandowski—-highlighted how Trump—-a human SpongeBob Squarepants minus the charisma—-surrounded himself with a coven of assholes and idiots.
The Trump Administration was basically “Animal House 2”: hilarious, except for the fact that Americans suffered tremendously for it. Trump was, like John Belushi in that film, a human zit that popped himself onto everything and everyone wherever he went, and we are still cleaning the mess.
Michael Wolf, who introduced the world to a new journalistic genre called Presidential Shitshow Verite in “Fire and Fury”, which covered the first 100 days of the dumpster fire that began with the “yuge” inauguration and ended with the divorce of Trump and Steve Bannon, continued his reportage of the madness in his follow-up book, “Siege: Trump Under Fire”, which essentially answers the question: Is Rudy Giuliani really that crazy?
The answer is “yes”, and also “and always drunk”, apparently. Also, when Bannon comes across as one of the few voices of reason in the book, it’s quite clear that the U.S. has entered one of the nine circles of Hell.
From Paul Manafort to Jared Kushner to Trump’s seven minutes in heaven with Vladimir Putin to being “exonerated” by the Mueller Report, Wolf’s book reads like Hunter S. Thompson riffing on David Halberstam, a “Fear and Loathing in Mar-a-lago” meets “The Worst and the Dumbest”.
Seriously, you could make a fun drinking game based on how many times Sean Hannity violates every code of ethics in journalism (which is funny, since nobody in good conscience can call him a journalist) or how many times Bannon expresses actual shock at anything that happens anytime with anyone in the Trump White House.
This was an audiobook, read completely straight-faced and with not a hint of laughter by Holter Graham....more
I love history, but I have, lately, had the sneaking suspicion that many of the history books I have been reading are unfairly one-sided and biased. MI love history, but I have, lately, had the sneaking suspicion that many of the history books I have been reading are unfairly one-sided and biased. Most, if not all, of the history books I have read have been written by white men. This is not to say that the information in them is wrong. It simply means that it’s not always all the information. There are perspectives that, historically, have, for whatever reason, been dismissed, ignored, or forgotten.
The fact that a large percentage of human beings in this country, until the middle of the last century, have never experienced the same freedoms and opportunities that a majority of Americans have experienced is not a new fact. It is, however, one that, within the past fifty years, is finally being voiced.
Elementary, middle school, and high school textbooks are slow to catch up with this trend. In many textbooks (especially some in Texas), the Civil War was a war fought over state’s rights. Period. It’s only half the truth. The Civil War was fought over state’s rights; specifically, the state’s rights to own slaves.
Slavery was a vile institution that white people in this country—-whether they owned slaves or not—-benefitted greatly from, economically. This is a fact, one that can’t be erased from history.
But slavery wasn’t the only horrible thing for which white people in this country are responsible. There’s the genocidal campaign against Native Americans (“Indians”, as Christopher Columbus mistakenly called them, as he brutally massacred many of them), the subjugation of women, the vilification of Mexicans, the mistreatment (and, in the case of the Japanese during WWII, internment) of Asian people.
Michael Harriot’s “Black AF History” is an eye-opening, humorous, and brutal exercise in historical revisionism, and a necessary one. It’s not revisionism in the false sense that most conservatives view revisionism. In other words, it’s not an alteration or an attempt to twist history to conform to modern standards. That’s the kind of bullshit backlash arguments that white supremacist historians make. This is a “re-vision” of history, or an attempt to add to the existing story through the addition of voices and perspectives that have historically been left out of the story.
For example, the Revolutionary War has always been taught as colonial America fighting back against the King’s unfair taxation, which is true. What isn’t mentioned is the role slavery played in the war, as Britain was toying with the idea of abolishing slavery (they finally did so in 1833), which worried the colonial leaders as slavery was a vital part of the economy. If slavery was abolished, a large percentage of the colonial workforce would suddenly have to be financially compensated. Plus, free slaves meant they could choose not to work, which means white people would have to fill those jobs, and no white person really wanted those jobs. Some historians argue that slavery wasn’t an issue in the revolution. Some agree that it was a minor issue. Harriot’s take is that, if you know white people, it’s not hard to see that many white people wouldn’t like the idea of giving up their slaves. Sure, taxation without representation was the main issue, but it’s silly to think slavery—-and the potential loss of a vital money-making institution—-didn’t play some part in the decision-making.
Don’t worry: most of Harriot’s book isn’t this controversial. A lot of it is just fascinating and heretofore unknown people and incidents that have been left out of history books, mainly because they were black. For example, a gospel singer named Rosetta Tharpe is credited for inventing Rock & Roll music, which is why she was inducted in the R&R Hall of Fame and Museum in 2017. Don’t take Harriot’s word for it, though: Little Richard, Johnny Cash, Chuck Berry, and even Elvis Presley at some point in their careers acknowledged the major influence that Tharpe had on their music.
Harriott is also a foodie, like me. His description and histories of South Carolina cuisine such as chicken bog and chicken perlo—-both dishes created by slaves based on their ease of availability and the fact that it could easily be made into batches that could feed dozens—-is mouthwateringly delicious in his detail.
“Black AF History”, besides being enlightening and educational, is also just fun as hell. Harriot incorporates a lot of his own childhood, being home-schooled by his parents and a slew of aunts and uncles, as well as a huge record album and book library where he discovered the works of Earth, Wind, & Fire and W.E.B. DuBois, “The Autobiography of Malcolm X”, and lots of science fiction.
This should be required reading for every high school AP History class....more
“Black Rednecks and White Liberals” is a collection of six long essays by Thomas Sowell, an economist and philosopher. Each essay is an examination of“Black Rednecks and White Liberals” is a collection of six long essays by Thomas Sowell, an economist and philosopher. Each essay is an examination of certain racial/ethnic groups as seen through the lens of economics.
To people who are not economists, this may sound like a dry, boring textbook. At least, this was my initial thought going into it, as I am not an economist and, to be honest, have always thought economics to be a dry, boring subject.
Surprisingly, Sowell had me engaged right away. His style of writing is far from dry. While professorial (He was a professor, having served on the faculties of Cornell, Brandeis, and UCLA), he writes with an enthusiasm that demonstrates his fascination for his subject matter. He loves economics, and it shows.
He also has a unique perspective, and one that I am ashamed to say that, going into it, I was afraid that I would find problematic.
Sowell is a conservative. (This is the part in the review when my liberal friends shout, “Egad!”)
I jest, of course, but I am familiar enough with some of Sowell’s reputation. He is a black conservative who is—-like other black conservatives Allen West and Candace Owens—-highly critical of governmental assistance for black people (such as affirmative action), as he believes that it has created a dependency that doesn’t actually help, and may actually hinder, the intellectual and emotional development of black people. While there may be some validity to this argument, I don’t necessarily agree with it totally.
That said, I went into “Black Rednecks and White Liberals” with as open a mind as I am capable. I honestly didn’t know what to expect.
To my delight, I actually enjoyed the book far more than I expected. I found Sowell’s essays to be enlightening and thought-provoking. They introduced me to concepts and ideas that I have never heard before.
For example, in the first essay, “Black Rednecks and White Liberals”, Sowell writes about how much of “bad” Southern black behavior (laziness, drunkenness, misogyny, violence) as well as mannerisms (saying “I be” instead of “I am”) that contributed to many negative stereotypes that are still around today actually comes from identical bad traits exhibited by specific white immigrants that settled in the South from an area west of England. These white immigrants—-often referred to as “crackers”, “rednecks”, or “poor white trash”—-literally rubbed off , behaviorally, on many of their black neighbors in antebellum and postbellum Southern states.
I found this fascinating. As I did the essay, “Are Jews Generic?”, in which Sowell writes about the historical mistreatment of “middleman minorities”, which are, historically, ethnic groups that often found success as bankers or merchants between the wealthy producers and the lower class consumer groups of another ethnic group, Jews perhaps being the most familiar within European countries. Being “middlemen”, these groups often felt the brunt of irrational anger and hatred during economic downturns and were often scapegoats.
Every essay in this collection intrigued, shocked, and enlightened me in some way. They challenged some of the liberal “truths” that I have held for a long time, and helped to reconsider some things that I have always considered sacrosanct. It reminded me of what the late Allan Bloom (another conservative philosopher) said about how having prejudices was a good thing, because when those prejudices are challenged or overturned, it is in that moment when true learning happens....more
An extremely timely and important book, Sara Kamali’s “Homegrown Hate: Why White Nationalists and Militant Islamists Are Waging War Against the UnitedAn extremely timely and important book, Sara Kamali’s “Homegrown Hate: Why White Nationalists and Militant Islamists Are Waging War Against the United States” is dense with information; practically an info-dump of anything and everything having to do with domestic terrorism. (One-third of the book is endnotes, sources, and bibliography.) Yet despite its disturbing subject matter and the sheer amount of academic (albeit fascinating) information, the book manages to still be readable and engaging.
One of the more disturbing take-aways is that White Nationalist extremists do as much, if not more, damage (loss of life, property damage, stress on the system and individuals) in this country than their American-born Militant Islamist counterparts, but, due to the fact that there is, technically, no federal ordinance against domestic terrorists, especially if they are white or Christian, very few are punished as severely as terrorists who happen to be Muslim. (Another win for white privilege! Yay!)
So, the terrorists who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, with the intent of overthrowing the government and torturing and killing government employees and officials, can’t, technically, be branded domestic terrorists. At least, not officially, since there is no federal criminal statute for it. This should make anyone who witnessed the horrific events of that day (and NOT the “high fives and hugs” that the Republicans witnessed through their bullshit-tinted glasses) feel sick to their stomach.
Why does this matter? After all, it’s essentially just semantics, right?
Wrong.
The differences between being branded a “domestic terrorist” and a “homegrown violent extremist”, according to the language of the respective federal ordinances, are subtle, but it boils down to the fact that a person is a homegrown violent extremist and NOT a domestic terrorist if, and only if, that person has ties (directly or indirectly) to a militant Islamist organization. So, because the Proud Boys didn’t receive funding or moral support from ISIS, they are not, technically, terrorists. Even if they are. Make sense?
Here’s some eye-opening stats (from the United States Government Accountability Office… and, yes, I’m just as surprised that such an office even exists, too):
“In ten of the fifteen years, fatalities resulting from attacks by far right wing violent extremists exceeded those caused by radical Islamist violent extremists.
“In three of the fifteen years, fatalities resulting from attacks by far right wing violent extremists were the same as those caused by violent radical Islamist extremists.
“Of the eighty-five violent extremist incidents that resulted in death, far right wing violent extremist groups were responsible for sixty-two (73 percent).
“Of the eighty-five violent extremist incidents that resulted in death, violent radical Islamist extremists were responsible for twenty-three (27 percent).”
In case you need it spelled out for you, those sentences are basically saying that, statistically, white Christian assholes are far more violent than brown-skinned Muslim assholes. But let’s be honest: this is like saying that Donald Trump’s penis is uglier than his ballsack.
White Nationalists and Militant Islamists actually have way more in common than one would think:
They both absolutely hate the U.S. government. Kamali gives detailed histories of both movements. Interestingly, using a straight line from Ruby Ridge to Waco, TX to Timothy McVeigh to January 6, she succinctly demonstrates how White Nationalists are overwhelmingly anti-U.S. government. Equally, due to a lot of history that the U.S. was a part of that has shaped (in a pretty bad way) the turmoil in the Middle East, Militant Islamists are vehemently anti-U.S. government, as well.
They both absolutely hate and want to kill anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs. For White Nationalists, anybody who is non-white (and, for the most part, non-Christian) are simply in the way of their goals. Likewise, Militant Islamists just want to kill everyone who is not Muslim. To be fair, both these groups are using very perverted interpretations of Christianity and Islam, but, hey, it’s all good because
They both want to establish a perfect Utopian World government. The problem is White Nationalists want an all-white Christian theocracy, and the Militant Islamists want a Muslim-only theopolity. Awkward!
Kamali’s book gives very in-depth explanations of concepts and terms that many people have heard but may not understand, like the Fourteen Words, RAHOWA, White Genocide, Christian Identity, Creativity, Wotanism, Al-wala, Wa-l-bara, Takfir, Jihad. Trust me, you will know what all of that shit means by the end of the book.
In light of recent events in the Israel-Palestine War and in light of January 6, 2021, Kamali’s book is an important and useful primer on terrorism....more
Genocide: (n) The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or grGenocide: (n) The deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
It is a sad irony that a nation-state built primarily for a group of people who suffered a near-successful genocidal campaign by a psychotic world leader in the 20th century has, in the 21st century, engaged in a similar genocidal campaign against another group of people, an almost-perfect textbook example of the oppressed becoming an oppressor.
Please don’t twist my words, either. I am not being Antisemitic in that statement. Criticizing the colonial policies of the Israeli government should not imply a hostility or hatred of the Jewish people. Unfortunately, the world being what it is, such a statement will inevitably be misinterpreted.
The truth, though, is that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has used the Israeli-Hamas War that started on October 7, 2023 as the impetus to continue a deliberate ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip that began roughly more than a hundred years ago.
Rashid Khalidi’s 2020 book “The Hundred Year’s War on Palestine” is an immensely eye-opening history of the conflict that has turned an area of the Middle East that is considered sacred by three of the major world religions into a profane killing field.
Blaming Israel is disingenuous, of course, as British Imperialism is as much at fault as the popular Zionist movement at the turn of the last century for creating the Palestinian displacement. In what has now become known as the Balfour Declaration—a single sentence recorded in a November 1917 cabinet meeting by the secretary of state for foreign affairs, Arthur J. Balfour—-Britain essentially declared its support for the eventual creation of a Jewish state in what was the country of Palestine. Perhaps nothing more than a statement to appease the growing number of Jews supportive of the Zionist movement in Europe at that time, this statement threw open a door that led directly to the creation of Israel many years later, a prospect that many indigenous Palestinians feared.
Jewish settlements, with the support of Britain, began to appear in Palestine after the First World War, bringing an already-existing Jewish population of roughly 6% of the whole to roughly 18% by 1926.
In 1947, The United Nations General Assembly voted for the partition of Palestine. Known as resolution 181, the plan provided an area of the country (42%) for the Arab population, an area of the country (56%) for the Jewish population, and the remainder (2%)—-an area comprised of the cities of Jerusalem and Bethlehem and surrounds—-designated as an “international zone”.
It was only a year later that Israel officially became a country, under David Ben-Gurion, head of the Jewish Agency. Helping to establish legitimacy was U.S. President Harry Truman’s recognition of the state on the same day it became the State of Israel, May 14, 1948.
Almost immediately, the violent upheaval that resulted in roughly 750,000 Arab Palestinians expelled from their homes began in earnest by the new Israeli government. Called the “Nakba” (an Arabic word meaning “catastrophe”), this ethnic cleansing of Palestine ushered in a new era of violence on both sides.
The Israeli narrative of this event vastly deviates from the Palestinian perspective. The tendency by some Israelis even today to downplay, ignore, or completely refute the violence committed by its own government during this time period ironically earns it the expression “Nakba denial”.
Palestinian militancy grew stronger in the subsequent years, eventually culminating in the foundation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), initiated by the Arab League (comprised of the seven countries of Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, North Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Transjordan), in May 1964. This was the first organization to officially represent the Palestinian people.
The group Hamas was formed many year later, in 1987.
The late 1960s was the beginning of what Khalidi refers to as “the classical period of the Arab-Israeli conflict”, in which the United States and Israel became unofficial “partners” during the Cold War against Russia, which “unofficially” offered support to militant Palestinian groups.
Amidst the violence perpetrated by Israel and militant Palestinian groups, it is important to keep in mind the vast number of innocent Palestinian people—-children, especially—-caught in the crosshairs of this conflict. Just as it is wrong to lump all Israelis together as anti-Palestinian, it is equally wrong to lump all Palestinians as terrorists. Unfortunately, this is essentially what happened.
Over time, the PLO denounced many of its own militant tactics, such as suicide bombing, and became simply a political arm of the Palestinian people. Many times, the group came close to getting countries such as the U.S. and Israel to recognize the legitimacy of the Palestinian people as a nation-state without a nation. But a two-state solution has never been adequately devised.
If any progress was made with the countless talks and accords over the years (and, frankly, there hasn’t been much), President Donald Trump set the conflict back considerably with his proposed peace plan announced in 2020, a plan rejected almost unanimously by Palestinians.
Then, October 2023 happened, where Hamas launched a full-scale attack against Israel from the Gaza Strip. According to recent data, roughly 1,200 Israelis have been killed and 5,341 injured; roughly 35,091 Palestinians have been killed and 78,827 injured.
Khalidi’s book is a good start if you want to understand the situation overseas. He lays bare his own personal history, one that divulges some of his own potential biases, but his book manages to be as objective an account of the last hundred years as is possible....more
If Lee Child, Blake Crouch, and Brad Meltzer ever collaborated on a novel, the result would end up something like a James Rollins novel. Rollins deftlIf Lee Child, Blake Crouch, and Brad Meltzer ever collaborated on a novel, the result would end up something like a James Rollins novel. Rollins deftly combines action/adventure, hard science, and well-researched history in his contemporary pulp novels that are reminiscent of Edgar Rice Burroughs and H. Rider Haggard, if Burroughs and Haggard were actually decent writers.
“Kingdom of Bones” is the 16th book in Rollins’s Sigma Force series, but it is the first of the series that I have read. Basically imagine if G.I.Joe routinely worked with Fringe Division to solve international X-Files cases, and you kind of have an idea of what Rollins is going for in these books.
The plot of this novel—-like most Rollins novels—-is too detailed and convoluted to go into, other than to say it is set in the heart of the Republic of the Congo, and it involves a supervirus, mutated baboons, a lost kingdom of gold, a legendary Congolese Christian king, pygmies, aardwolves, robotic killer dogs, and a life-giving Mother Tree that may have provided the genetic material that helped in the jumpstarting of the evolution of humanity. There’s also, of course, a stock Bond-type villain who is plundering the Congolese natural resources for his own avaricious desires. There’s also a lovable military dog named Kane.
It’s not totally necessary to know the main characters. They are all kind of cardboard cut-out Action Heroes with names like Grey, Frank, Tucker, and Kowalski. These are the recurring characters, and I don’t know their back-stories.
Despite its silliness, “Kingdom of Bones” is an exciting action thriller with a lot of fascinating science and African history to keep you turning the pages, assuming the heroic dog isn’t enough to do that.
I “read” this as an Audiobook on CD. It was narrated wonderfully by Christian Baskous....more
Christ, I love a good old-fashioned mobster story, and Dennis Lehane can tell a doozy. His 2012 novel “Live By Night”, a sequel to his 2008 novel “TheChrist, I love a good old-fashioned mobster story, and Dennis Lehane can tell a doozy. His 2012 novel “Live By Night”, a sequel to his 2008 novel “The Given Day”, has everything you want in a mob thriller—-Tommy guns, zoot suits, and hot dames. It also has something you won’t find in a lot of mob stories: an understanding of white privilege and the historically racist consequences of Prohibition.
Joe Coughlin is the youngest of the Boston Coughlins. Unlike his older brother, Danny, who was a cop and went out west to be a sheriff, Joe went the other way, into a life of crime. Pulling off bank robberies with aplomb with his two Italian partners, Joe makes the mistake of pulling a job on the gambling backroom of gangster Albert White. It’s not the money that White cares about. It’s the fact that Joe stole the heart of Albert’s moll, Emma Gould.
Joe finds himself on the run from the police and White’s thugs. Ending up in prison, Joe works out a deal with Maso Pescatore, a rival mob boss of White’s. Maso takes Joe on and sends him to Ybor, Florida, to run his rum-running business there. Joe flourishes, as does the rum-running business, thanks in no small part to Prohibition and because Joe knows how to deftly handle the many Cuban immigrants there, mainly by treating them with respect and as humans, something which the local white population of rich snobs and white supremacists don’t.
Joe falls in love with a Cuban woman, Graciela Suarez, who makes him rethink his life of crime. Does he really want to own the world? Or is greed worth a life of loneliness and constantly looking over one’s shoulder?
This book is as perfect as one can get: full of action, suspense, romance, and a beautiful sense of American history. The ‘20s may have been a roaring good time for the rich assholes, but for a large part of the population (i.e. non-white), America wasn’t kind.
I “read” this as an audiobook, narrated by Jim Frangione....more
Sadly, what I know about the Alamo comes almost exclusively from Brian Kilmeade’s book “Sam Houston and the Alamo Avengers”, a book that I actually enSadly, what I know about the Alamo comes almost exclusively from Brian Kilmeade’s book “Sam Houston and the Alamo Avengers”, a book that I actually enjoyed, despite the fact that it was written by Kilmeade, a FOX News anchor who has said and done some boneheaded things in his career.
The fact that Kilmeade’s book—-and what Texans have been, and are still, taught about the Alamo in schools—-is mostly horseshit shouldn’t be surprising, given what we know about Kilmeade and Texas. And the United States, for that matter.
History is wonderful and exciting, but you couldn’t tell that from listening in on an average American middle school or high school history class. Mostly, it’s the sound of crickets or students snoring. The teachers aren’t necessarily to blame, either, as there are so many factors—-outdated textbooks, lousy content standards, more class time devoted to standardized testing than actual learning—-that make history so boring for kids. We are basically raising a nation of children to not give a shit about history, which is not only shameful but dangerous.
Thankfully, there are historians out there who still give a damn. Bryan Burrough, Chris Tomlinson, and Jason Stanford have collaborated on one of the best history books I have read in a while, “Forget the Alamo: The Rise and Fall of an American Myth”. It’s a lightening-rod title, and it’s meant to be.
Much of this book may not resonate too strongly with anyone who is not a history buff or from Texas, as it is almost exclusively an issue that affects only Texas historians and academics, but it has repercussions for all Americans and encompasses a lot of hot-button issues such as the rise of white supremacy, political correctness, and critical race theory.
It’s more than a book of history. To be clear, this book is actually more historiography than history. Historiography is the study of the way history is told and the different methodologies through the years that have shaped history. It is the way history is interpreted and revised through the lens of any particular era.
For example, for many decades following the famous 1836 battle at the Alamo Mission near what is now San Antonio, TX, Texans considered the fallen defenders (estimated between 180-260 men) against an army of roughly 1800 Mexican soldiers to be heroes. Indeed, the Hero mythology surrounding men like Sam Houston, William Travis, Jim Bowie, and Davy Crockett elevated them to almost God-like status, and any criticism of them was akin to sacrilege.
Now, historical revisionists are looking at these so-called “heroes” in a different light and pointing out that much of their “heroic” actions they are known for probably didn’t actually happen and was based solely on fictional accounts in popular novels, movies, and TV shows. Much like the events of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, AZ, a lot of what we think we know about the event was simply not historically accurate.
There is also the strong element of racism in the Alamo’s historiography, as many Texans of a certain generation grew up calling Mexicans “murderers” in much the same way that ignorant Christians still brand Jews as “Christ’s murderers”. In truth, the cruelty and viciousness of the Mexican army was, in many ways, exaggerated tenfold, simply to create a narrative in which Mexicans were the villains of a story where, truthfully, there were no actual heroes or villains.
And, of course, there is the over-arching shadow of slavery that covers this entire story, a shadow which has—-up until recently—-been all but erased from much of Texan’s knowledge of the Alamo. That early Texans engaged in a violent revolution against Mexico primarily over the right to own slaves is still an important piece of information that tends to get glossed over in Texas school books.
Historical revisionists have, in the past couple decades, tried to set the record straight, but they are getting major push-back from a largely conservative right-wing contingent who deride the revisionists as leftists who are taking “political correctness” too far.
The good news is that many more voices are being heard that lend a different and fresh viewpoint to the story of the Alamo. More Mexicans, blacks, Native Americans, and women are entering the story, none of which take away from the importance of the event. If anything, their voices simply add more depth to a story that has always been slightly one-sided.
“Forget the Alamo” is a must-read for anyone who loves history. It’s also a must-read for anyone who has a hard time accepting the “official story”. True history often shows itself when enough people dig deep to find the actual story....more
It’s definitely one of the best books I’ve read this year, but it’s certainly not the most uplifting. In fact, it’s downright disturbing and frighteniIt’s definitely one of the best books I’ve read this year, but it’s certainly not the most uplifting. In fact, it’s downright disturbing and frightening, which creates a kind of cognitive dissonance since it is also beautifully written.
Jeff Sharlet’s “The Undertow: Scenes From a Slow Civil War” is journalism at its finest and most poignant. Written as a travelogue through Trump country, Sharlet’s book is an attempt to try to understand the mentality of certain groups of people: Trump supporters, pedophiles, televangelists who preach hate in the name of Jesus, racists, violent pro-lifers, and gun-loving militia members ready to wage war against the evil liberal elites.
He sits down with these people and talks to them, letting them just speak. Occasionally, he’ll ask questions. Mostly, he just lets them speak.
Amazingly, he didn’t die. He didn’t hide the fact that he was a liberal or a journalist or a Jew. Maybe it was this honesty that made them feel comfortable enough to talk with him. Laying all the cards on the table allowed them to do the same.
The result is, at times, tension-filled and horrifying. Sharlet records some of the most vile and cringe-worthy conversations ever. At times, though, he actually succeeds in finding the humanity buried at the heart of some of the most atrocious people.
Sharlet’s “trick” is that he never calls them atrocious people. I’m pretty sure that he never actually thinks it. To him, they are Americans who, like him, have problems with this country, but they just have wildly divergent opinions as to what those problems are and how to solve them. This isn’t to say that Sharlet doesn’t admit to being frightened by these people. He just doesn’t let that fear negate the fact that these are still human beings, not the villainous “them” (as in the age-old “us vs. them”) that many of these people resort to using (and which I will admit to being guilty of using myself, most notably in that last paragraph).
This is an extremely important book, and it may be the first truly great book about the Trump Era. I can’t recommend it enough....more
Carole Marsh has probably written about 3000 books, if not more. Seriously, Google her.
The fact that she writes books for elementary school age or midCarole Marsh has probably written about 3000 books, if not more. Seriously, Google her.
The fact that she writes books for elementary school age or middle school readers should not detract from that impressive accomplishment.
Marsh has a very long-running series of mysteries for tweens involving real-life places. They attempt, in a very fun and exciting way, to teach a bit of local history. My daughter, who is nine, loves them.
We read “The Mystery of Hilton Head” because every year, usually in March or April, we spend a week at a time-share condo on the tennis-shoe-shaped island in South Carolina. Our condo sits right on the beach overlooking the ocean. We’ve been taking our daughter every year since since she was one (with an unfortunate cancellation in 2020 due to the pandemic). It is, according to her, one of her favorite places in the world.
Anyway, Marsh’s books are fun. They all have, as their protagonists, four young kids. They are the grandkids of Grandma Carole, a famous mystery writer who takes them on numerous vacations around the world. Somehow, there is always some interesting mystery to solve. (No murders, though.)
These make fun gifts for kids, especially on the eve of a big vacation. Because I guarantee, no matter where you are going—-Hawaii, New York City, Paris—-Marsh has written a book about it....more
I’m sure something similar has happened to you: You are sitting in the break room at work, when one of your co-workers—-someone with whom you normallyI’m sure something similar has happened to you: You are sitting in the break room at work, when one of your co-workers—-someone with whom you normally get along but also happen to know that their political leanings are diametrically opposed to yours—-says something along the lines of “Universal health care will never work in this country” or “White privilege is a myth” or “Abortion is murder” or “The truth is: all lives matter” or (my personal fave) “God, I love my AR-15”.
You just want to eat your sandwich. You only have 15 minutes. What do you do?
In normal rational times, one would pretend not to hear it and not take the bait. Unfortunately, we are not living in normal rational times anymore. Nowadays, a break room argument can often turn ugly. In extreme cases, they can turn violent, and, before you know it, you have become a tragic story on the 6 o’clock news.
Nathan J. Robinson has the answer. Actually, he has 25 answers, to 25 arguments that conservatives love to make, ad nauseam, about subjects ranging from abortion to gun control to immigration to white privilege, in his book “Responding to the Right”.
Before he gets into his responses (which are incredibly rational, with evidentiary support), Robinson first offers a tutorial on how not to respond.
One of his most important pieces of advice is also, sometimes, the most difficult to follow: Never assume that the person you are arguing with is stupid.
This is actually quite integral in shaping an argument that won’t quickly devolve into anger and frustration. Because it is often way too easy for liberals to write off conservatives as stupid partly because, in many cases, conservatives have automatically written off liberals as idiots as well. (See anything written by Ann Coulter.) The truth is, many conservative arguments are simply more emotion-based rather than logic-based, and even extremely intelligent people (on the right and the left) can succumb to their emotions. The trick is to defuse the situation from the start by penetrating through the emotional part of the argument to the real issue underlying it.
In many cases, it’s not enough to just relay facts and statistics. In fact, in many cases, having data on your side may actually make things worse. Not that making factual statements is a bad thing, but one must be very careful when using facts and statistics with conservatives, because more often than not, they double down with their own facts and statistics, many of which they pull out of their own ass on the spot.
Here’s the important point to make: Have legitimate and trusted sources. And lots of them. Sources are the bane of a conservative’s existence. Seriously, read any book by Ann Coulter or listen to anything Rush Limbaugh says. They will often make up statistics out of whole cloth and/or quote sources that don’t exist. In Coulter’s case, she often likes to source herself. (Not making that up, actually.)
One of the biggest examples is global climate change. Conservatives (actually, fewer and fewer, thankfully) will still insist that a majority of scientists still don’t have a consensus that it exists (the truth: virtually all reputable climatologists will agree that it is certainly real) or that it is being caused by deleterious effects of human overpopulation (again, a vast majority of scientists will agree on this point as well.) Many conservatives will cite studies or research that is either 10-15 years out-of-date and/or proven to be false. Or they will use as a source a scientist that has been discredited by a jury of his peers. It’s not that conservatives don’t like science, necessarily. It’s simply that many conservatives don’t want to take the time to learn it and are much happier quoting studies and data that are taken out of context, outdated, or just plain wrong.
Moral arguments, such as abortion, are a bit tougher to argue. Robinson acknowledges that the argument is often predicated on two sides—-those that believe that abortion is murder and those that don’t. Neither side has ever offered a successful way to convince the other side, mainly because it is an inherently emotional argument. In cases like this, Robinson argues, it’s often better to simply “agree to disagree”.
In a nutshell, Robinson simply makes the point that the best defense against a faulty argument is knowledge. Do your own research. Ask questions.
Sure, compassion is important, too. Robinson makes that point, as well. Part of the problem with the world we live in today is that people on both sides of the political spectrum have stopped trying to listen to each other because they just don’t care anymore. People are mean. They’re angry and frustrated and short-tempered, which is what makes some of those break-room confrontations so fraught with tension and danger. Sometimes, the best response is no response at all....more
Holy crap, where do I start with this? First off, I’ll say that Tom O’Neill’s 2019 book “CHAOS: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of theHoly crap, where do I start with this? First off, I’ll say that Tom O’Neill’s 2019 book “CHAOS: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties” is so fascinating of a read that there were times that I was tempted to call off work just to finish it. I didn’t, of course, because I’ve used up all my sick time already, and I actually like my job.
There is literally too much to unpack about this book, so I won’t do it, mainly for my mental health. I could gush for pages and pages about this, which is basically what O’Neill does, for 436 pages. Just read what he wrote.
This book is basically what happens when an intelligent journalist falls into a rabbit hole of investigative journalism about the Manson murders and uncovers 30-year-old conspiracy theories that flip on its head nearly everything we think we know about the Manson murders. Through hundreds of interviews and countless uncovered documents, O’Neill has pieced together a 5000-piece jigsaw puzzle that’s unfortunately missing a couple thousand pieces, but it still shows us a pretty clear picture.
Consider this a companion piece to Vincent Bugliosi’s 1974 “Helter Skelter”, which is still considered the definitive account of the Manson murders. O’Neill’s book is, however, more than just a companion piece. He literally excoriates and destroys Bugliosi’s account by more than implying that Bugliosi (prosecuting attorney for the Manson trial) suppressed vital information, lied under oath, and created a completely horse-shit motive for the murders. That, and he was a pretty horrible human being, and O’Neill had police reports to prove it.
That’s not even close to the tip of the batshit crazy iceberg, though, as O’Neill somehow (plausibly) connects the Beach Boys; J.Edgar Hoover’s illegal COINTELPRO (counter intelligence program) of the late ‘60s; the CIA’s campaign to discredit and dismantle the anti-war movement via an operation called CHAOS; and rogue free-clinic doctors conducting LSD experiments on unwitting patients, especially a certain group of hippies living out in the desert led by a charismatic ex-con who may or may not have been an LA county sheriff’s or federal informant.
This book is wild. I’d almost write this book off as nutso conspiracy theory nonsense, except I’ve just lived through the past 10 years in which some asshole New York real estate douchebag who once did a cameo in “Home Alone” actually became president and contributed to the untimely death of millions of Americans because he thought injecting bleach into the bloodstream was a good idea and then fomented a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol because of a bullshit lie that the 2020 elections were stolen and that a couple million Americans still think this idiot should run in 2024. So, yeah, the idea that Charles Manson may have been a federal informant and/or a pawn in some illegal CIA experiment trying to make hippies into violent psychopathic killing machines using LSD and methamphetamines honestly isn’t that hard to believe. ...more
Anyone who lived through the late-1960s will probably recall—-if not in detail then surely in impact—-the brutal murders at 10050 Cielo Drive, Los AngAnyone who lived through the late-1960s will probably recall—-if not in detail then surely in impact—-the brutal murders at 10050 Cielo Drive, Los Angeles, California on August 9, 1969. It didn’t matter if you lived in San Bernardino, the Bronx, or Gary, Indiana: you watched the news, saw the headlines, heard people talking about it at work. It was on everybody’s radar.
The five victims (six if you count the unborn fetus of one of the victims) were Abigail Folger, Wojciech Frykowski, Jay Sebring, Steven Parent, and Sharon Tate, who was eight-and-a-half months pregnant with her child, Paul, whom she’d had with her husband, Roman Polanski. They were murdered viciously and seemingly randomly. A home invasion ending in bloodletting.
The murders, later lumped into a group with other murders that occurred the day before and the day after, became known as the Tate-LaBianca murders. Later, as more facts came in and the identity of the perpetrators became known, it became more commonly known as the Manson Murders.
The perpetrators were three females and one male. They were young hippies living in a commune out in the desert called Spahn Ranch, a place that was once a famous Hollywood landmark where many western movies and TV shows were filmed. It had been overtaken by a community known as The Family, led by a patriarch named Charles Manson.
The subsequent trial was, at the time, the longest (nine months) and most expensive criminal trial in American history. It required its jury members to be totally sequestered for nearly a year. It was, at the time, one of the most highly publicized trials ever. It also helped to catapult the career of Vincent Bugliosi.
Bugliosi was the prosecuting attorney in the trial. It was his job to convince the judge and jury that Manson, despite not being present during the actual murders, had planned, choreographed, and ordered the murders via his followers, who—-Bugliosi was convinced—-would do anything that Manson asked them to do. Bugliosi painted Manson as a charismatic Jim Jones-like cult leader who had brain-washed his followers into believing that he was not only the reincarnation of Jesus Christ but, oddly, Satan as well. He was Christ and Satan in one embodiment.
He also had to convince the judge and jury that Manson’s motive was a highly complex and bizarre attempt to set off a global race war between blacks and whites, a plan devised by Manson based on Manson’s own mystifying interpretation of the lyrics of The Beatles’s songs on The White Album, and, specifically, the song “Helter Skelter”. In the end, Bugliosi succeeded. The jury eventually found all defendants—-including Manson—-guilty of first-degree murder. They were all sentenced to death, but California ended the death penalty several years after the trial, so everyone involved received life sentences. Manson died in 2017.
Bugliosi published his book “Helter Skelter” in 1974, and it quickly became one of the best-selling true crime books ever. It has become the go-to source of Manson lore, despite the fact that dozens of books have been written since that offer a more in-depth look at Manson and the Family. He has also been the subject of controversy, as Tom O’Neill, in his book “Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties”, more than implies that Bugliosi may have intentionally or unintentionally suppressed vital information during the trial.
Despite all that, “Helter Skelter” holds up well, if only as an important historical document of the late-‘60s and early-‘70s. The late Joan Didion famously remarked that August 9, 1969 marked the official death of the 1960s. It was, in her opinion, a death of innocence for the country. Bugliosi may disagree. At one point in the book, he makes the legal distinction between the words “innocent” and “not guilty”. They are, under the law, two very different things.
According to Bugliosi’s logic, the ‘60s may not have been guilty of the paranoid conspiracies or the anti-government sentiment or the greed and violence that swept the country in the subsequent decades, but it certainly wasn’t innocent either. ...more
“No president has accomplished more in North Korea than me.”
“No president has done more for the black community, except maybe Abraham Lincoln.”
“I d“No president has accomplished more in North Korea than me.”
“No president has done more for the black community, except maybe Abraham Lincoln.”
“I downplayed the virus. I still downplay it. I just don’t want to create a panic.”
“I have a plan.”
“It’s fake news.”
These are actual, honest-to-God statements that Donald Trump makes (sometimes multiple times, ad nauseam) in “The Trump Tapes”, an audio book collection of the twenty interviews that Trump allowed legendary journalist Bob Woodward to record for posterity.
There is something intangibly significant about listening to these tapes, as opposed to reading Trump’s words in transcript form. One misses the intonations and the subtle nuances of Trump’s rhetoric when they are simply written down. Even Woodward acknowledges this.
I have, ever since Trump was serious about becoming president, wavered back and forth between two thoughts: either Trump is as incredibly stupid as he sounds or he is actually very intelligent but merely playing dumb. I still haven’t decided after listening to “The Trump Tapes”. What I have decided, though, is that Trump—-regardless of whether he is actually far more intelligent than he lets on—-suffers from the following handicaps:
1) He is completely unwilling or incapable (and I lean more toward the latter) of any deep self-reflection. I don’t know how many times Woodward, with the patience of an angel, had to ask Trump the simple question, “How did that make you feel?”—-or variations of it—-in regards to a variety of topics, from North Korea to the pandemic to George Floyd’s murder. Unfortunately, I don’t think it was a simple question for Trump, who makes it clear that he isn’t sure how to feel about anything unless he’s being told how to feel by a majority opinion in the room. This is why Trump quotes poll numbers like they are Gospel all throughout the many interviews. Even when Woodward makes a statement like “Well, poll numbers aren’t that accurate, Mr. President.” and Trump responds, “I know, you’re right.” and then, seconds later, quotes another poll. At one point, Trump tells Woodward that he’s not a “feeling” guy, he’s a “doing” guy. To me, that reads as chilling and somewhat sociopathic. (See #3)
2) He is a textbook narcissist. Now, arguably, one must probably have narcissistic tendencies to go into politics in the first place and, for sure, to want to be president. But I can’t imagine any other president doing the completely reckless and dangerous things that Trump has done, most notably refuse to concede an election that he lost and, in fact, create an entire bullshit narrative about voter fraud and a rigged election. Trump’s narcissism inevitably led to the violent insurrection on the Capitol on January 6, 2021. By sending out inflammatory tweets and riling crowds up during his rallies, Trump did everything he could to foment and incite the violence of that day among his followers. And he did it because he couldn’t accept the fact that more people in this country voted against him than for him. He literally couldn’t accept it to the point that he was asking his Vice-President, Mike Pence, to commit an unconstitutional act to overturn the election, and then he was angry when Pence actually did the morally right thing.
3) I truly believe that Trump is a sociopath. Sociopathy, also known as antisocial personality disorder, has several detectable traits, according to Dr. Andrew Coulter, MD, among those: constant lying and deception, callousness, manipulation, arrogance, impulsiveness, a lack of understanding the difference between right and wrong, lack of empathy, risk-taking, taking dishonest actions that violates people’s rights, difficulty in acknowledging one’s own faults. (https://health.clevelandclinic.org/so...) I could break each one of these down and offer clear-cut examples of Trump’s behavior that exhibits these traits, but the problem is that, for half the audience I would be preaching to the choir and, for the other half, it would be “fake news”.
I have to give Woodward credit. He was always extremely polite and deferential to the president, even at the most heated moments—-moments when a lesser journalist would have been pulling their hair out and calling Trump a “liar” or worse. I have not read his book “Rage”, for which a majority of these interviews were used....more
There are two narrative threads going on in Joel Warner’s interesting but ultimately unsatisfying book “The Curse of the Marquis De Sade”: one is abouThere are two narrative threads going on in Joel Warner’s interesting but ultimately unsatisfying book “The Curse of the Marquis De Sade”: one is about a notorious manuscript written by a sexual criminal during the 18th century and the other story is about one of the allegedly largest and most lucrative con-jobs ever perpetrated (so far) in the 21st century. On their own, they are quite fascinating stories.
What Warner attempts to do is somehow combine the two narrative threads into one cohesive whole. For the most part, he succeeds, except that in alternating the focus between both stories, he starts to lose focus on both stories. In the end, it just leaves me wanting more information.
His historical “biography” of the infamous “120 Days of Sodom”, written by an imprisoned Marquis de Sade (whose sexual predilections and perversions were so well-known that the word “sadism” stems from his name), is excellent, and this alone is probably worth the read.
The novel was written in a fever dream (probably syphillis-related) on a long scroll that was transported in a special container made especially for Sade. The book, translated from the French, was later published and created quite a stir. By all accounts, it is Sade describing the depth and length of human sexual depravity. Think 18th century “The Human Centipede”.
Warner tracks the colorful history of the various owners throughout history, starting with some of Sade’s relatives. At one point, it was owned by a doctor who studied sex and was, in fact, one of the founders of the very real science of sexology. It finally found its way into the hands of Gerard Lheritier.
A savvy businessman (or brilliant con-artist, according to some) Lheritier had a business that bought and sold old manuscripts. Believing that paper was more valuable than property, Lheritier convinced his clients (marks) out of a sense of national heritage (these were, in fact, authenticated historical manuscripts) and elitism (who, after all, wouldn’t love to brag at a dinner party that they owned the original manuscript of Dickens’ “David Copperfield”?)
Then, in 2015, French police raided his corporate offices and charged Lheritier with bilking hundreds of his clients out of millions of dollars through a highly elaborate Ponzi scheme. He was quickly dubbed “The French Bernie Madoff”. He is still appealing it today.
Of the two stories, the history of Sade’s manuscript is a far more interesting one. Maybe I’m just not that business-oriented but I could honestly care less about some asshole who scammed millions from a bunch of other gullible rich assholes.
What Warner has here potentially, in my opinion, is the start of two great books. Unfortunately, what he has in actuality is one mediocre book....more
8/30/2024 addendum: Definitely one of the best biographies of Trump written in the past decade...
Someday, the most definitive and comprehensive biogra8/30/2024 addendum: Definitely one of the best biographies of Trump written in the past decade...
Someday, the most definitive and comprehensive biography of Donald Trump will be written, but, until that time, Maggie Haberman’s wonderful book “Confidence Man” will suffice.
To be fair, nailing down the truth about Trump is probably akin to trying to catch an electric eel with your bare hands: it’s slippery as hell and you’re prone to get shocked every once in a while.
Trump has inflated and confabulated so much of his own life in numerous interviews and books throughout his life that it’s virtually impossible to get a completely accurate picture of him, but Haberman tries, sifting through the morass of bullshit to the nuggets of truth.
For the most part, she succeeds in giving us a better understanding of Trump, and the result is surprisingly entertaining, if not also disturbing.
Haberman, a journalist who has been covering Trump long before he threw his hat in the ring for president in 2015, is one of the few reporters Trump has repeatedly let interview him, without filing libel lawsuits. (The other one is Bob Woodward.) She has been both lauded and criticized for being “too friendly” with Trump, although she certainly doesn’t paint a flattering picture of Trump in “Confidence Man”. Neither has she written a vitriolic hit-piece.
I think that Haberman is simply one of those dying breeds: a good journalist who believes in being as objective as possible, a journalist that simply lays the facts and information on the table and lets us, the readers, judge for ourselves.
In fact, the portrait she paints of Trump in her book is a fair one, with plenty of straightforward color in narrow brushstrokes and some realistic shade. If he comes across as shallow, it is merely because he is shallow.
There are some eye-opening stories in here. Too many to recount, and Haberman does a better job telling them anyway. But there is one that I found rather humorous and enlightening and says a lot about the kind of man Trump is.
At one point during an interview, Haberman felt (as she often did) that she probably wasn’t getting too much actual valuable information from Trump, so she switched gears and asked him a silly question. Well, silly to you and me, but apparently not to Trump.
She asked Trump why he ate so much fast food. (It is verifiable fact that Trump frequently ate fast food fare, McDonald’s being a favorite.) His response was that he often didn’t like restaurants because one normally has to book reservations. This meant that the chefs had plenty of time to poison his food. Fast food places don’t know that he’s coming ahead of time, so they can’t poison the food.
I’m fairly certain that Trump wasn’t joking. I get the impression that Haberman didn’t think he was joking either, which is why she included it in the book. It may be a small anecdote, but it seems to say a lot about Trump’s character....more
“One of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loya“One of the great problems we have in the Republican Party is that we don’t encourage you to be nasty. We encourage you to be neat, obedient, and loyal, and faithful, and all those Boy Scout words, which would be great around a campfire but are lousy in politics… You’re fighting a war. A war for power… What we really need are people who are willing to stand up in a slug-fest.” —-Newt Gingrich
“[Trump]’s changed the party to an authoritarian party culture. So not only do you go after external enemies, but you go after internal enemies. You’re not allowed to have any dissent.”—-Ruth Ben-Ghiat, history professor at New York University
“The professors are the enemy”—-J.D. Vance, Republican Senator from Ohio
“A recent ABC/Ipsos poll had found that 52 percent of Republicans believed the people involved in the January 6 attack had been “protecting democracy”. That meant that half of the GOP electorate saw the violent extremists who had assaulted law enforcement officials, threatened to kill the vice president, and tried to overturn a legitimate election as heroes. The party was cracked. (P. 336)”
In truth, Donald Trump didn’t have a monopoly on crazy. Nor did the Republican Party. It can be said, however, that at no other time in history did a president or a party fully embrace and encourage the fringe and the batshit crazy the way Trump and the Republicans did in the past decade.
As David Corn writes in his excellent history of the deterioration of the Republican Party from within, “American Psychosis”, the far-right fringe and the just plain fucked-up have always been kissing cousins with the GOP. Most of the time, the party was just able to hide it better.
Trump said “fuck it!” and let his far-right freak flag fly. Hence, the cadre of misogynists, racists, homophobes, anti-semitic white nationalists, and extremists he called his friends and close advisors.
Corn’s historical overview is a fascinating and disturbing look at how the far-right has crept into bed with the Republicans via organizations like the John Birch Society and the Heritage Foundation, groups that try to pass themselves off as legitimate “think tanks” but are nothing more than right-wing propaganda machines.
Corn illustrates how each Republican president, starting as far back as Theodore Roosevelt, was forced to at least kowtow to extremists within their own party as a way of ensuring the votes. Even Eisenhower, at certain points in his presidency, was known to turn a blind eye to fringe groups within his own party.
With Nixon and Reagan, the Republican Party began to deviate as far-right as possible with their total submission to Christian fundamentalists and very public political alliances with nutballs like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.
The rise of right-wing media stars such as Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck and the popularity of the ultraconservative FOX News network helped to bolster some of the right-wing extremists in the party, like Newt Gingrich. Movements such as the Tea Party and Q Anon helped to merely solidify the absolutely toys-in-the-attic loony toons and made a Trump presidency inevitable.
There’s a long list of Republican demagogues that have helped to create the violent extremism in the current GOP—-Joseph McCarthy, Spiro Agnew, Mitch McConnell, Phyllis Schlafly, Sarah Palin, Steve Bannon, Michael Flynn, just to name a few—-and Corn gives credit where credit is due for events leading to January 6.
“American Psychosis” is a must-read for any rational-minded person looking to see how the once-proud party of Lincoln has gone off the rails....more
In what has quickly become my current favorite graphic novel series, Killadelphia Volume 3: “Home Is Where The Hatred Is”: the undead Thomas JeffersonIn what has quickly become my current favorite graphic novel series, Killadelphia Volume 3: “Home Is Where The Hatred Is”: the undead Thomas Jefferson has come to Philadelphia in hopes of teaming with with the Adamses for world vampire domination; newly-resurrected John Adams is feeling guilty for causing so much bloodshed and not doing enough for women’s rights (especially his wife’s) that he decides to join the good guys; Seesaw meets Jesus (literally) and the Big Guy basically ghosts him (literally); Seesaw then seeks out help from an ancient god, Anansi the Spider God; Jimmy Sangster—-bitten and slowly turning—-is stuck in a limbo battling himself; the good guys find assistance in an unlikely ally…
Writer Rodney Barnes has turned the vampire mythos on its ear in a series that is super-smart, funny, extremely gory, and way more relevant than any graphic novel out now. In Volume 3, he ups the ante by adding witches and werewolves to the mix. This is some of the best horror/historical revisionism I have read in a while. Also, the artwork by Jason Shawn Alexander is awesome....more
The undead Abigail Adams (former First Lady) is leading an army of vampires in Philadelphia after her husband, John, was staked through the heart. AbiThe undead Abigail Adams (former First Lady) is leading an army of vampires in Philadelphia after her husband, John, was staked through the heart. Abigail is proving to be even more brutal and bloodthirsty than her late husband. Meanwhile, James Sangster Sr. is enjoying a nice little reunion in heaven with his late wife when Jimmy Jr. calls him back to life on Earth. Seesaw visits Hell and makes a deal with the devil. Flashback to 1962, California, where a young black woman discovers that she is the queen of the werewolves, a.k.a. the Black Panther Party…
Rodney Barnes’s Killadelphia is a fun, gory, trippin’ vampire graphic novel series, with fantastic art by Jason Shawn Alexander. Also some great historical revisionism in this… ...more
Loading...
