A Journey to the Land of Make-Believe!

"Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is working to destroy it......Clearly a society that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."-Jean-Francois Revel

em-pire (em'pir') n. Abbr. emp. 1. A political unit, usually larger than a kingdom and often comprising a number of territories or nations, ruled by a single supreme authority. 2. The territory included in such a unit. 3. Imperial dominion.

I stumbled on to this anti-American propaganda a few weeks ago and thought I'd give a few of my thoughts on the video and the larger problem it illustrates. As we progress further into this post-modern age of dis-enlightenment, I expect this kind of historical revisionism (cherry-picked facts mixed with half-truths and outright falsehoods wherever necessary to support a preexisting ideology) to become the rule rather than the exception. I also find it necessary to view garbage like this occasionally to remind myself that the political right does not hold a monopoly on idiocy. For anyone who couldn't stomach the entire video, it was made to promote Howard Zinn's book: "A (delusional) People's History of American Empire", appropriately released on April Fool's Day. I'm going to point out some of the problems with this video and the ideological movement behind it. This will be a long post because it's amazing how much misleading can go on in an 8-minute video. I also want to say up front that I am not writing this because of patriotism or because I believe that the U.S. has never done anything wrong. There are many historic examples of this. I am writing it because I view the Manichean, black/white view of the world presented in this video is every bit as dangerous as that espoused by many neo-cons who believe the United States is perfect, that we need to have war all the time, etc. In this respect, Zinn is merely the other side of the same ideological coin that looks to turn history and the current state of the world into a morality play with simplistic, ideological explanations for everything.

Now, on to the video itself. First, let's give a big round of applause to Viggo Mortensen for reminding us that people who make their living by portraying emotions on screen are not to be relied on for rational analysis of anything. (There are exceptions of course, but as a rule celebrity should not be confused with authority.) Second, am I the only one who thought the cartoon version of Zinn was a dead-ringer for Ron Paul? The first substantive issue I have with the video is, what is the motive behind it? Anti-imperialism? Pacifism? Anti-Americanism? This is a little easier to answer if we have some background on Mr. Zinn. First, the motive is probably not anti-imperialism because of Mr. Zinn's long history of support for Castro, who according to Zinn had "no bloody record of suppression" and other tools of the Soviet Empire (which WAS an empire in every sense of the word) and his reference to communism as an "exaggerated threat". The motive also cannot be pacifism given Mr. Zinn's gushing praise for Chairman Mao, who butchered more people than Stalin or Hitler (I guess it's okay as long as you keep it within your own borders) Regarding Mao's regime, Zinn stated it was "the closest thing in the long history of that ancient country to a people's government"(the people that survived that is) Also, Zinn is a Marxist, and Marxism is violent by definition. Redistribution of wealth can only be accomplished through violence. For example anyone wanting to "redistribute" my "wealth" will most likely have to either: a)kill me and take it or b) be killed by me while trying to take it. The motive we are left with is anti-Americanism specifically, and anti-capitalism generally.

Does the word "empire" fit or is he simply using it as a pejorative term? Well going back to the dictionary definition at the top of the page, let's look at some examples: Cuba, the Philippines, France, Germany, South Korea, Grenada, Panama, Italy, Mexico, Japan, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Kosovo, Bosnia, etc. All have been invaded by the U.S. (or had large U.S. military presences operating within them) How many fall under U.S. dominion today? Zero,as in zero. Secondly, how many empires take over countries then re-build them into independent states (and economic rivals to the "empire") at great cost to themselves? The answer here is also zero. So with this in mind I'm going to address some specific misleading points from the video. (I didn't notice any glaring lies in the video, Zinn saved these for the book, where they are numerous.)

The intro about the genocide of American Indians, and the actions with regards to Cuba and the Philippines are accurate and I have no problem with them. I'm not trying to gloss anything over here. The part about the Mexican-American war was also generally accurate, albeit presented in an over-simplified manner. However, they are most likely included to make the viewer think that the wiping out of the Indians is in some way related to later U.S. actions like entering World War 2. This is not explicitly stated, but planted in such a way that the viewer gets the impression that if the U.S. commited genocide in one instance that must be the driving force behind everything it does. We get to the major twisting of history once we reach the period beginning with World War 2 and the Cold War. Note the complete lack of any reference to the brutality of the Japanese empire or any consideration of how many lives an invasion would have cost both sides. We then come to the claim that the U.S. was trying to maintain it's dominance of Europe and nuclear monopoly right after World War 2. So, the U.S. strategy of removing it's troops from all the conquered European nations except Germany and rapidly demobilizing it's military is a sign of imperialism? The complete unwillingness to challenge Soviet domination of East Germany (or any other European nation for that matter) wasn't exactly the way an empire with military superiority and a nuclear monopoly either. It was only after the Europeans called for assistance that the NATO alliance was formed in 1949. Again, this is a far cry from the cartoon in the video showing the U.S. as an octopus trying to stretch across the world, with no mention of the U.S.S.R. This reversal of history is shown again with regard to Korea. Apparently the war was "not about fighting communism" but about "establishing a foot-hold in Asia". So apparently the two are mutually exclusive in Zinn's mind. Secondly, it's hard for me to see where the U.S. expansionism is here. Is resisting another power's expansion the same as imperialism? Perhaps only when it's done by a capitalist society. The Cold War followed this pattern a lot, communist expansion leads to American resistance which is then "imperialist", this kind of communist propaganda persists in a lot of people's worldviews to this day. Just the other day I heard the old Warsaw Pact referred to as a "military alliance". It boggles the mind. It seems to me like an "American empire" would have backed more groups that were doing the invading rather than those who were being invaded. But this kind of fact-twisting is necessary to tie all previous wars neatly into the overarching theory and make them seem exactly like the occupation of Iraq.

We then come to the shocking revelation that the Vietnam war had economic causes! I'm shocked. That would mean that that war was just like every other war in human history. Again, note the simplistic portrayal of a complex historical event as having a single simple cause that nicely dovetails into a preexisting Marxist view. And it was brutal? You're kidding me. Apparently the fighting c Who knew wars were brutal? I'm not trying to sound "pro-war" here, I view war as the second worst thing imaginable. Fortunately, partly through the work of Zinn and others like him, the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam and Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia were spared the fate of post-war Japan. Think of all the new phrases like "killing fields" and "year zero" that we wouldn't have gained in our lexicons. I don't say any of this to excuse U.S. behavior with regard to certain aspects of the way the war was fought (I'm not the one with the Manichean world view here.) But when the overall narrative presents one side of history and presents it as anything other than an indoctrination, I have a problem with that.

Note the simplistic A to B logic with regards to the first Gulf War. Events are portrayed as flowing together in a simple, logical, unambiguous fashion. There can be no extenuating circumstances or considerations not involving class struggle. If something happened involving U.S. involvement in the middle-east in the 40's and 50's then that must be directly causing the events of the early-90's. The CIA helped overthrow Mossadeq so it must be behind every event in that part of the world. (As an aside, the idea of Mossadeq as the "democratic leader" is greatly exaggerated. He had just dissolved the parliament, violating the constitution, and did away with secret ballots on his way to winning 99.93% of the vote. Yeah, that's a democratic election.) This is the nice thing about being driven by ideology, you get to mold the facts rather than let the facts mold you. This is probably why revisionist history is so popular at both ends of the political spectrum.

Then we mercifully come to the end with Viggo asking us "have we not reached a point in history where we are ready to embrace a new way where we expand not our military power, but our humanity?" What the hell does that mean? It sounds like a reference to ingesting narcotic substances to me. (I'd like to study the subject of socialism to learn when it first became infused with new age psycho-babble like this) I can only conclude that he means we must embrace socialism. I'm sure he means "real" socialism, the kind that exists only in utopian fantasies that inhabit some theoretical plane in the far-flung reaches of the imagination and produce equality and happiness; not the "phony" socialism which exists in the real world and has almost always produced misery and famine. So in conclusion, I can't help but feel sorry for the people duped by this world-view, particularly kids being forced to "learn" this in schools. I think anyone watching this should ask themselves, "What would the world look like if there had never been a U.S.A.?" What kind of places would Europe and Asia be? So, now I'm going to read the book this is based on (once I can get a copy from my library, because God knows I'm not spending any money on this stuff) and will probably post a few thoughts on it. Hopefully, I'll be able to keep it short next time. I've only thumbed through a previous edition of the book and saw a few statements about historical events that were the exact opposite of the truth. So I should find it interesting. (For anyone looking for a more eloquent response to stuff like this video, especially with regards to the Cold War and the concept of U.S. imperialism I would recommend reading the book How Democracies Perish, by Jean-Francois Revel or checking out one of his articles on Anti-Americanism at the link above.)

a Pall on Truth and Reason.....

(Warning: the following post may be considered offensive by some readers. It contains profanity, sex, and may be offensive to barnyard animals or the animal husbandry profession as a whole.)





I normally don't read the tabloids very often. I find their writings to be to ridiculous to pretend they are actual news while at the same time not subtle enough to be good satire. Today's New York Times hatchet piece on Senator McCain caught my attention however. Apparently this "news" organization decided that it had not humiliated itself enough this decade between the Jayson Blair fiasco and the shoddy reporting done by Judith Miller and others in the run-up to the Iraq war. I think the comment I heard today from a left-wing caller to a left-wing talk show sums up my feelings the best: "he could be screwing goats for all I care". But, I'm getting ahead of myself. For those of you who have not read the "story", allow me to sum it up.
Two anonymous (meaning "lacking the balls to speak up in public like a man") former aides who've become "disillusioned with the senator" (What the hell does that mean? Were they fired or something?) claim that 8 years ago an affair may or may not have happened between Senator McCain and a young blond lobbyist. They claim advisers met with the senator to tell him not to be around her due to the "appearance of impropriety"(due to the lobbyist thing? because people might think there's an affair? we're not told and apparently the "reporters" had very little interest in finding out.) The story then re-hashes the Keating Five scandal that happened when I was in grade-school. That's about the entire story.
My first reaction to this piece of "news" was that it was the flimsiest story I've read in quite some time. The headline should have read "Two Guys Think McCain Might Have Had an Affair....Maybe". I mean shouldn't a story like this one present one piece of oh, I don't know.....evidence? Maybe a recorded phone conversation or a semen-stained dress or a line of countless women coming forward with allegations would suffice. The whole story seems carefully worded so that it doesn't go beyond rumor, innuendo, and speculation into stating a claim that could be considered libelous. I mean we're talking ZERO evidence here. Nothing even pretending to be evidence. I've heard Barack Obama speeches with more substance than this. Of course that didn't stop the "journalists" from jumping all over this shit. I've probably heard the term "raises the question" 50 times today. I've got a radical idea here, rather than "raise the question" repeatedly how about DOING YOUR FUCKING JOB and looking for any kind of corroboration before giving your opinion on what is rumored to have happened 8 years ago? "Well we're just giving both sides of the story". The problem with this line of reasoning is that the truth is often one-sided. If you're going to drag some one's name through the mud at least look for some hotel receipts or notes or something better than "they rode on a plane together" or "she showed up at fundraisers". I think if I was running the campaign I would use every means at my disposal to make the people at that paper think heaven is falling. I wouldn't stop until every one involved is fired. The reasons for this are two-fold 1) you can't let these things go unchecked as John Kerry learned 4 years ago. You need to clear your name for the sake of your family. 2) From a hardball politics standpoint, you need to make an example out of someone. This way if a shaky, poorly sourced story pops up in September or October people will think twice about running with it.
I know some people will ask me the following questions. Didn't the New York Times endorse McCain? Yeah, when he was running against OTHER REPUBLICANS. Now it's a different story. The other question is "what if it's true? Do you care about politicians having affairs?" The answer is no. I was 18 when the Clinton-Lewinsky thing happened and was too obsessed with getting laid myself to care who else was. My feelings now are that these matters are between a person and their spouse. Thomas Jefferson was banging slaves for crying out loud. As far as I'm concerned if you can balance the budget, uphold the constitution, and not use government property in the commission of any lewd act you can fuck goats for all I care. Yep, that's right, good leadership entitles you to a "goat-fucking license" as far as ol' Mr. Haircutt here is concerned.




(see that's what I mean about subtle sarcasm. Am I joking? Am I insane? Hard to tell isn't it? But I bet you weren't expecting to read the phrase "goat-fucking license" today.)

Critical thinking 101

+In the last post I mentioned a lot of dirty political stuff going on and in this one I'm going to show how a little bit of critical thinking can go a long way in keeping you from making an idiot out of yourself. Too often we pass on whatever we hear without question, usually because it reinforces something we're already inclined to believe or we got it from a "reputable source" like an email or the radio. The thing I find maddening about this is that you don't have to have a research library or spend precious minutes searching the Internet to know when you're hearing bull shit. Generally I find the best question to ask when hearing any spurious claim is: "does this add up?". While a comprehensive list of logical fallacies heard in every day life would take far more space than I'd care to use right now, I'm going to use a specific example to point out examples. Since the "Who is Barack Obama?" email hoax has been around for a long time and in the news lately I'm going to use it as my example here. I also use this one since most of its claims are what I call "rat poison" lies. Just as rat poison consists of mostly food, with a little poison mixed in, most lies have a little truth (albeit twisted and distorted) mixed in. And any time you mix a lie with the truth you only create a more dangerous lie. The claims have been thoroughly refuted, so I won't go out of my way to point out every factual error just the stuff that should be a red-flag to a thinking person that they're not reading a factual account. So here's the email and then my breakdown will follow.


Who is Barack Obama?Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice. If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts...this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about itand share it.We checked this out on "HYPERLINK "http://snopes.com/" \nsnopes.com". It is factual. Check for yourself.Who is Barack Obama? Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was bornin Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas. Obama's parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia.When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocate to Indonesia. Obamaattended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school. Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, "He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic School." Obama's political handlers are attempting to make it appear that he is not a radical. Obama's introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son's education.Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama' s mother, Ann Dunham,introduced his stepson to Islam.Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible but instead the Koran Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegience nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential candidacy. The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level - through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!! Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?...... NOT ME!!! .

observations:
-First of all I thought putting the line in there about checking it out on snopes.com was brilliant. Whoever did that clearly knew enough about human nature to know that most people will take their word for it and not check the link themselves. If they were to click on it they would learn that snopes (a reference page for checking out urban legends) completely debunks this story.

-These things always tell you to forward it to everyone you know NOW! The survival of the world depends on it! Never underestimate the power of fear to destroy logic. A similar phenomenon can be observed when politicians use phases like "mushroom cloud over an American city" or "world war 3". This is not said to get you to think rationally but to not entertain any doubts.

-"very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States...better heed this and pray about it and share it" So right here we have a pretty good idea who this is intended to appeal to. Note that you are asked to pray about it rather than to think about it. A good prayer for this occasion would be: "Lord, please help me to know when people are full of it. And protect me from anyone who thinks you are so powerless that you need them to be your enforcer here on earth. Amen".

-Have you noticed yet that his full name is used 4 times? I wonder if this is to compare him to the late King Hussein of Jordan. Probably not. Please feel free to not vote if some one's middle name the major issue for you. Keep this in mind: in the nineties "George Bush" was a common name for babies in Kuwait, so a lot of kids in that part of the world probably have similar problems ahead of them

-"Barack Hussein Obama was bornin Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHIEST from Wichita, Kansas." - This one cracks me up as well. Did you notice the words ATHEIST and MUSLIM? They thought those might slip past you without the all caps. I think the part that slips through here (and the author's real issue with the Senator) are the words preceding those. Capitalizing WHITE and BLACK would be a little over the top, better to plant the thought in your mind and hope that you care about that kind of thing (And if you do have a problem with that feel free to have a hunting accident or something).

-"His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia." So the guy who is a RADICAL (and presumably very fundamentalist) Muslim marries a divorcee with a child. (Who don't forget, is an ATHEIST infidel) That's a little fishy don't you think? Hopefully the fear hasn't worn off so you're not being rational.

-"Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta. Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world." So his mother the "ATHEIST" sends him to a school that teaches fundamentalist Islam? Come on. Jerry Falwell couldn't have made up something this ridiculous. (but not for lack of trying)

-"keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible" This wouldn't bother me even if it was true, which it is not (I'm sure it was an honest mistake by whoever originated this since I'd bet that that person thinks "they all look alike") Theodore Roosevelt wasn't sworn in on a bible and wanted to take "in God We Trust" off of the currency. Last I checked, he was considered a pretty good president being enshrined on Mount Freakin' Rushmore and all. I personally believe (and I say this as a Christian, a Baptist no less) that all oaths of office should be taken with a hand on a copy of the Constitution, rather than a religious text. But, getting back to the point, do they expect me to believe that this guy does everything in his power to hide the fact that he's a Muslim (even going so far as to join a church) but then demands to be sworn in on a Koran in the middle of the capitol, with cameras everywhere? Yeah, that adds up. That makes about as much sense as a terrorist getting all kinds of safe houses and fake ID's and then showing up at the airport wearing a shirt that says "HI-JACKER" across the front.

-"Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches." Again it seems like a sleeper agent would know better than to draw this kind of attention to himself. Because we all know reciting the pledge and putting your hand over your heart are what makes one a real patriot. There's no way anyone who does these things could ever be a danger to the republic. Anyone who wraps them self in a flag and carries a cross must be on the up-and-up.

"The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out." Gosh, how did I miss that one? Did "the Muslims" hold a press conference or just put out a written statement? Do you suppose they voted on the idea? Or was it just decided by the "King of Muslims"? What have "the Christians" said in response? To claim the Bin Ladens and Husseins of the world represent all (or even most) Muslims is about as rational of claim as saying that the Grand Inquisitor of Spain represents all Christians.

-In conclusion, never let the facts get in the way of irrational fear.