The Best Stress Reliever in the World – Anger Yoga

Do you experience frustration from time to time? Have you ever been fed-up with something? Do the packed yoga classes have you at your wits end? Well suffer no longer, my friends. There’s a new craze sweeping the nation and it’s here to help you with your anger. In fact, it’s called Anger Yoga.

As an experienced professional in such complementary and alternative medicine as Japanese Eyeball Poking, I am uniquely qualified to introduce you to the wonderful world of Anger Yoga.

I can hear you asking, “But, Dr. McVeigh, what is this Anger Yoga you speak of?” Anger Yoga offers the same relief as real yoga, but without all the bending and flexing and farting. So how does it work? I’m glad you asked.

In the most common form of Anger Yoga, the practitioner enters a yoga class and kicks the closest person right in the gut. It doesn’t matter what yoga pose they are in the middle of, so long as the Anger Yoga practitioner puts the majority of their aggression into the kick. This is how Anger Yoga can relieve stress. One swift boot to another person’s face or ass and you are bound to feel better, my friends.

Just look at these dickwads. They’re praying for a boot in the ass.

You see, Anger Yoga involves a person bottling up their anger and emotions until the time comes that a yoga class is in session. The Anger Yoga student then goes to that class about 10 minutes after it starts, walks in, and proceeds to release their frustrations through a series of gut punches, body slams, and elbow drops. The trick is to channel your anger into whichever part of your body is landing on the unsuspecting yoga student. This could mean transferring your frustrations to a yogi through a swift headbutt or conferring your aggravation to a yoga student through a well-executed pile driver.

It may sound simple, but people spend years becoming Anger Yoga masters. I, for one, have been practicing Anger Yoga for, like, a hundred years, which is why I am the only person in the U.S. and A. that is qualified to train you in the art of spiritual enlightenment and physical pain giving through Anger Yoga. With my guidance and the art of Anger Yoga, you will never be frustrated again.

Call now.


The Missing Links – March 11, 2011

The Missing Links is just what it sounds like – a collection of links to interesting things I found on the interwebs this week. I hope you enjoy them. This is the seventh in a never-ending series.

Winner! Mental_floss has a short article (with video) of Mr. Rogers’ Lifetime Achievement Award acceptance speech. I loved me some Mr. Rogers growing up. Hell, I still Mr. Rogers. Here’s a few reasons why.
A Close Second: In this TED Talk, Dr. Anthony Atala prints a human kidney.
Best in Show: Stephen King on taxes and unions and the Tea Party. It’s no secret that King is punk rock.
And this week’s Crazypants Award goes to… the woman with a monkey in her bra. Not really much more to say about this one.

Random Links – About species that get diseases (humans) and species that do not (sharks)

Independent experts have found that the drug companies did not influence the WHO’s handling of the H1N1 pandemic. In lighter news, the WHO’s ineptitude means that if H1N1 had been bad, millions of people would have died.
After all these years (ok, I’m still quite young), sharks are still fascinating to me. Here’s the mystery of Helicprion, the whorl-toothed shark.
Here’s an interactive map of the well-being of the U.S. See how your county matches up (but don’t get too bummed if all your neighbors are depressed, ok?)

Language – The Official American Language and Where She’s From

Johnson at the Economist explains what grammar really is and why National Grammar Day means power to the people!
Here’s a guest post on Schott’s Vocab by Robert Lane Greene about THE DECLINE OF ENGLISH and y itz a lode of craps, y’all.
Stan Carey explains where she is from.
The Hot Word on the hardest words to translate into English? I know from experience that Finns will tell you sisu is the hardest Finnish word to translate, but I think it’s just a matter of context. In my opinion, tsemppi is the toughest one.
The U.S. finally has an official language. Rejoice!

The Missing Links – March 4, 2011

The Missing Links is just what it sounds like – a collection of links to interesting things I found on the interwebs this week. I hope you enjoy them. This is the sixth in a never-ending series.
Winner! Caught Dead in That is a blog started by Jacob Sager Weinstein, who says, “I’ve always thought your last words should be the greatest thing you ever say, because you’ve had longer to think about them than anything else.” The blog is updated with pictures of the gravestones of people both famous and non. For example, here’s Rodney Dangerfield’s. And I couldn’t resist linking to a Dangerfield routine.
A Close Second: The Salty Droid follows the James Arthur Ray trial. Learn why you shouldn’t pay sickos like Ray money to kill you. If you really want a sauna (and, trust me, you do because they’re awesome) go get your own.
Best in Show: The 100 Best Protest Signs from the Wisconsin rallies. Some of these are pretty clever.
And this week’s Crazypants Award goes to… Spiders! In your car! Mazda is recalling over 20,000 cars because of the Yellow Sac spider, which likes to weave a web that may cause fuel spillage. has put together a nice quiz on health care, the federal budget, and bailouts. There are only three questions, but if you get one wrong, the quiz makes sure you learn the correct answer by making you go back and changing it. Pretty neat.
Em has an interesting take on the state of Wisconsin in terms of the world at large, while Robert de Neufville channels NYC Mayor Bloomberg and explains why we need unions.
What you thought of as the French language has been nothing but an elaborate hoax. Lies! Lies, I tell you!
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor! Governor Tom Corbett does his best to make sure that the people who can least afford health care don’t even have the option to health care at all. Why? Cause he’s a dick.
Corporal Frank Buckles, the last American World War I veteran, has died peacefully at the age of 110. He also “endured 38 months of cruel deprivation as a civilian prisoner during World War II before being freed in a daring military raid.” A life lived.
This article in Discovery adds new meaning to the term Cat Lady. Apparently, “the relationships between cats and their human owners mirror human bonds.” The research suggests that the relationships that develop between cats and their owners are much stronger than you might think.
In sadder news, a poor woman and her children fall victim to a racist landlord… and the fucked up laws of Pennsylvania (and probably most of the country – am I right, readers?)
There is new research out that claims there might be something to the idea that the predictability of words corresponds to their meaning. It doesn’t, but oh well.
Hip hop has been the soundtrack to the protests in North Africa.

People’s vs Patriot’s – Part II – People’s Introduction

Patriot’s vs People’s is an analytical review of two books about American history that most would assume are politically opposed – Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen’s A Patriot’s Guide to the History of the United States and Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. It started as an idea after I bought Zinn’s book and was given Schweikart and Allen’s by an uncle who so rightly explained his gift as a way for me to read “the other side of the story.” I decided to read them side by side, chapter by chapter, in order to compare and contrast the two works to each other. It didn’t go so well. This is Part II, here are Part I, Part III and Part IV.

Last week, I gave my review of the introduction to Schweikart and Allen’s A Patriot’s History of the United States. I went a bit harsh on them, but that’s only because the authors seemed to be suffering from an extreme case of confirmation bias. I guess that’s OK. We’re all guilty if it, just some of us are more guilty than others, I suppose.

It is now time to turn our inquiring minds to Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. Let’s hope Zinn can balance things better.

The title could mean a lot of things to a lot of people. For the authors of Patriot’s, however, A People’s History of the United States, “honestly represents its Marxist biases in the title!” [Exclamation theirs] I’m not sure which part of the title is Marxist, but I’m guessing it’s the “People’s” part, probably because some communist countries are called the “People’s Republic of Whatever” and Marx is the godfather of communism. It’s an emotional salvo, but factually strained. Marx never published anything called A People’s anything and by Patriot’s logic, Google’s most Marxist result is…

The People’s Choice Awards. Seriously, Patriot’s? Lame sauce.

Other than the “Marxist” title, People’s has no introduction, no statement of purpose, no interviews, and no out-and-out chest thumping, acerbic, and/or combative blurb on the back, except for this:

Known for its lively, clear prose as well as its scholarly research, A People’s History of the United States is the only volume to tell America’s story from the point of view of – and in the words of – America’s women, factory workers, African Americans, Native Americans, working poor, and immigrant laborers.

Such an altruistic aim – those people are often denied a voice in history books – but don’t worry. Although People’s begins with the history of the Native Americans encountering Columbus, it does include a thesis statement in this first chapter. It also includes interviews with Zinn and excerpts from his other books, but these are buried way in the back after the index, as if People’s thinks it has nothing to prove.

After describing the terrible things that Columbus’s men did to the Arawak Indians (“terrible things” = fucking genocide), Zinn says, “When we read the history books given to children in the United States, it all starts with heroic adventure – there is no bloodshed – and Columbus Day is a holiday.” This must be the line that pissed of Patriot’s authors enough to write their own non-Marxist version of American history for they claim that, according to “any mainstream U.S. history textbook,” “America’s past is a tale of racism, sexism, and bigotry.”

So what’s really in our kids’ U.S. History books – self-righteous heroic adventure or tawdry racist bigot sex? Who knows? Screw it. Let’s hope it’s both and move on.

People’s further elaborates its purpose with an exceptional admittance of the problems inherent in history books. Zinn makes the point that historians should neither lie outright nor by omission and then writes, “It is not that the historian can avoid emphasis of some facts and not of others […] My argument cannot be against selection, simplification, emphasis, which are inevitable […] for historians.” He not only admits his shortcomings (and the shortcomings of all historians), he goes on to the say that the decisions historians make in telling history serve (intentionally or not) to support “some kind of interest, whether economic or political or racial or national or sexual.” So, is this a profound insight or cheap cop out? That probably depends on which side of the aisle you pee on.

Zinn then explains how emphasizing Columbus’s heroism and sailing abilities over the genocide committed by him and his men is an ideological choice that serves only to “justify what was done.” He’s got a point there, but he backs off a bit, saying that condemning “Columbus in absentia […] would be a useless scholarly exercise in morality.” I have to say that if he didn’t want his readers to do that, he shouldn’t have started off with the genocide of the Arawaks at the hands of Columbus.

Before coming to his main reasoning for writing People’s, Zinn says that the idea of the United States as “a community of people with common interests” and “national interest” found in the U.S. Constitution and laws of Congress are mere pretenses. He then delivers his thesis:

My viewpoint, in telling the history of the United States, is different: that we must not accept the memory of states as our own. Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest […] And in such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people, as Albert Camus suggested, not to be on the side of the executioners.

Although People’s claims to tell the story of the “Constitution from the standpoint of the slaves,” etc., etc., Zinn says he doesn’t want to “grieve for the victims and denounce the executioners” nor to “invent victories for People’s movements.” He instead offers this lofty goal:

If history is to be creative, to anticipate a possible future without denying the past, it should, I believe, emphasize new possibilities by disclosing those hidden episodes of the past when, even if in brief flashes, people showed their ability to resist, to join together, occasionally to win. I am supposing, or perhaps only hoping, that our future may be found in the past’s fugitive moments of compassion rather than in its solid centuries of warfare.

An astute reader, however, would notice that Zinn is indeed inventing victories for people’s movements. His earlier statements about how historians’ decisions serve to support interests means that Zinn either knows that inventing victories will be one of the consequences of his work or that he just unintentionally missed a major point in his own argument. I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he knows he is being two-faced, he’s just doesn’t have the cajones to own up to it.

I’m not so sure, however, about the straw man argument that he invents later in the chapter. With his statement, “Was all this bloodshed and deceit – from Columbus to Cortes, Pizarro, the Puritans – a necessity for the human race to progress from savagery to civilization?” Zinn is drawing in any reader that ever felt suspicious, guilty, or angry with the expression “sacrifices were made.” But who is saying that “this bloodshed and deceit” were a necessity – Columbus, Cortes, Pizarro, and the Puritans? People’s is beating a 400-year old dead horse here.

Similarly, Zinn sets up another dubious argument when, speaking of the genocide of Native American tribes, he says, “Beyond all that, how certain are we that what was destroyed was inferior?” Again, who is calling the Native Americans inferior? Columbus, Cortes & Co. made those decisions centuries ago – not me, nor Zinn, nor Patriot’s Schweikart and Allen (At least, not that I know of).

I can sort of understand if Zinn is trying to get his readers to place more stock in the Indians, but he’s not doing it right. Basically, he’s robbing Peter to pay Paul. He writes:

They [the Native Americans] were people without a written language, but with their own laws, their poetry, their history kept in memory and passed on, in an oral vocabulary more complex than Europe’s, accompanied by song, dance and ceremonial drama. They paid careful attention to the development of personality, intensity of will, independence and flexibility, passion and potency, to their partnership with one another and with nature.

But this is just sentimental bullshit that sells Europeans short. “An oral vocabulary more complex than Europe’s?” What the hell is that? And what the hell does he mean by Indians paying “careful attention to […] flexibility?” Or “passion and potency?” Nothing. He means nothing. He’s just trying to get his readers to view Native Americans as more than savages, which is insulting to any reader with a working brain.

Another problem with this portrait of Native Americans is that Zinn falls into his own trap when he lumps the Native Americans together as one people. What happened to “Nations are not communities and never have been?” Or to “The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest?” Hmmm? It’ not OK to lump the Americans together as a whole, but it is OK to lump Indians together? I thought we were supposed “to not be on the side of the executioners” and to not group whole swaths of people together, as Columbus did with the Indians. In fact, I’m not even sure Columbus did that. Whatever.

Zinn sums up his motivation and goal with People’s very nicely in the last sentence:

Even allowing for the imperfection of myths, it is enough to make us question, for that time and ours, the excuse of progress in the annihilation of races, and the telling of history from the standpoint of the conquerors and leaders of Western civilization.

When I first read this line, I thought it showed that Zinn was combative, possibly a bit short-sighted, and maybe trying to sell his point to strongly because there is obviously a great need for the history of all people – the more the merrier. But now when I reread that line, I think it shows Zinn laying open a consideration that any inquisitive reader has had while reading history. It is a noble aim and the sentence tells readers what they will be getting with People’s, which is a welcome skeptical view of history as usual.

Let’s just hope it stays that way.

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo OR How to Get Laid and Solve Crimes In Scandinavia

Just like the Nobel Prize, Dolph Lundgren and a certain variety of delicious red fish, the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is the latest Swedish phenomenon to capture the hearts of Americans. Flying off book shelves at a rapid pace and quickly surpassing the degenerates from “The Jersey Shore” as the primary topic of water cooler conversation, Stiegg Larsson’s debut novel is a captivating tale loaded with financial intrigue and family drama with a healthy dose of European sexuality peppered in for good measure.

Larsson’s story centers around the decades old disappearance of a member of the powerful but fading Vanger family. The patriarch of the Vanger clan, Henrik, enlists the help of disgraced financial journalist, Mikael Blomkvist, to solve the mystery of his missing niece, Harriet Vanger. Henrik uses the carrot on the stick approach to lure Mikael with the promise of clearing his sullied name.

As the plot thickens, Mikael realizes that he will not be able to solve the mystery by himself. He then enlists the help of the unusual albeit brilliant Lisbeth Salander. Together the pair dig deeper into the mysterious disappearance of Harriet Vanger and unravel the deep dark secrets of the Vanger clan.

This book easily surpasses The Da Vinci Code as the best thriller of the 21st century with its fast pacing, sharp writing and interesting characters. Larsson does a great job here keeping the reader glued to the pages until the final act. While there are obvious suspects, the writer keeps you guessing up until the very end as far as who the culprits are and what is the ultimate outcome.

One of my gripes with the book is that the characters are a bit flat. This could be because the intent was to draw out the development over a string of ten books, but the characters remain pretty stoic throughout this volume. Mikael remains righteous, moral and extra resoursceful; Lisbeth is always strange, cold and jaded; and Henry is always rich and old. None of the characters really grow or change in any way.

Spoiler Alert

The only other problem I had with the book is the huge amount of sexual ambiguity in the story. While sex, sexuality and rape are a huge part of the plot, I feel like there was plenty of intercourse that was just plain unnecessary – particularly that of the two main characters. I sort of felt their sexual relationship was misplaced and illadvised, especially considering Mikael has an ex-wife, a best friend/lover AND a concubine on the grounds of the Vanger compound by the quarter point of the story. I expected the two to have more of a mentor/mentee, father/daughter type relationship rather than one that gets convoluted with intimacy.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a great book for anyone looking for a fast entertaining read. Don’t expect James Joyce, but then again, don’t expect James Joyce.

Happy Reading!

Missing Links – February 25, 2011

The Missing Links is just what it sounds like – a collection of links to interesting things I found on the interwebs this week. I hope you enjoy them. This is the fifth in a never-ending series. Sorry for the delay this week. I was committed elsewhere today.
Winner! Behold… The Map of Metal!
A Close Second: Patrick Rodgers forecloses on Wells Fargo bank. This guy is my hero. Here’s the story of how he won.
Best in Show: The 50 Worst Band Photos Ever. Manower makes the list, but so does, shall we say, the world’s lesser known bands.
And this week’s Crazypants Award goes to (you guessed it)… Charlie Sheen, who out crazypantsed such a heavyweight as Alex Jones right in front of Jones himself. As if that wasn’t enough, he went on to, well, continue his crazy streak.

The Washington Post has set up a site for ongoing special coverage of the 150th Anniversary of the American Civil War. There are recommendations on which Lincoln books to read, a blog about the Civil War, and even a link to the Civil War Twitter feed, as told by the people who were there. It’s really great and I’ll try to remember to repost it closer to April 15th.
The World: 
Muammar Gaddafi says that the world looks up to Libya, but that he brought glory to Libya. I don’t mean to portray a terrible situation in humorous terms, but going full-on crazypants might just be what makes Gaddafi lose any respect and/or support he may have left (and therefore help the Libyans move past him).


Have you ever blamed your lack of productivity on dead batteries? Do you worry about the heat and energy wasted by your laptop when it’s plugged in? Well, companies like Transphorm may make those bulky and wasteful laptop charging bricks a thing of the past, while Thinkpad and HP are coming out with laptops that have 30+ hours of battery life.
Helsinki, Finland has become the eco friendly underground wonderland. An efficient system of pipes cools their computers and heats their homes. Check it out. Just don’t go looking for any morlocks in the video.
How much would it cost to turn the world into a green economy? Not that much actually. Just 2% of the world’s GDP or $1.3 Trillion per year. Pocket change.
You wouldn’t steal a car, would you? Then don’t steal a movie. Because the movie industry doesn’t want you to know that profits from movies are up.
There are only three countries in the world that do not offer a legal guarantee of paid maternity leave. Can you guess one of them? Here’s a hint: Judging by my site stats, a large percent of you are visiting me from that country right now.
Here’s a short article from mental_floss on National Geographic’s Enduring Voices project, which estimates that the world loses a language every 14 days.
Popular Linguistics, Issue 2 – including such hot topics as exactly how many words Eskimo-speak has for snow (the answer: don’t worry about it) and why the n-word is so controversial
It’s Oscar time! Ok, I’m not that excited. But I do like me some Jackie Harvey and his predictions. See you on the outside!

Patriot’s vs People’s – Part I – Patriot’s Introduction

Patriot’s vs People’s is an analytical review of two books about American history that most would assume are politically opposed – Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen’s A Patriot’s Guide to the History of the United States and Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. It started as an idea after I bought Zinn’s book and was given Schweikart and Allen’s by an uncle who so rightly explained his gift as a way for me to read “the other side of the story.” I decided to read them side by side, chapter by chapter, in order to compare and contrast the two works to each other. It didn’t go so well. This is Part I, here are Part II, Part III and Part IV.

Everything leading up to Patriot’s first chapter, from the phrase on its spine to the introduction, not only has me looking for inspiration to read the rest of the work, but is carefully crafted to appeal to one particular type of reader. In my analysis below, I’ll number the clues to which type of reader Patriot’s is written for in order to make a nice and handy list when we’re done.

The phrase on Patriot’s spine, “From Columbus’ Great Discovery…,” starts off the tone on the work. It smacks of selfishness. The back isn’t much better. I’ll quote it here in full:

Is America’s past a tale of racism, sexism, and bigotry? Is it the story of the conquest and rape of a continent? Is U.S. history the story of white slave owners who perverted the electoral process for their own interests? Did America start with Columbus’s killing of all the Indians, leap to Jim Crowe laws and Rockefeller crushing the workers, then finally save itself with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal? The answers, of course, are no, no, no, and NO. [Emphasis not mine – JM]
One might never know this, however, by looking at almost any mainstream U.S. history textbook. Having taught American history in one form or another for close to sixty years between them, Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen are aware that, unfortunately, many students are berated with the tales of the Founders as self-interested politicians and slaveholders, of the icons of American industry as robberbaron oppressors, and of every American foreign policy initiative as imperialistic and insensitive.
The authors of A Patriot’s History think that an honest evaluation of the history of the United States must begin and end with the recognition that, compared to any other nation, America’s past is a bright and shining light. America was, and is, the city on the hill, the foundation of hope, the beacon of liberty. They utterly reject “My country, right or wrong” – what scholar wouldn’t? But in the last thirty years, academics have taken an equally destructive approach: “My country, always wrong!” Schweikart and Allen reject that too.
Cover design by Joseph Perez
Whew! It’s going to be hard not to take pot shots at this book. For starters, the first paragraph is right and wrong. While America’s past most definitely does include racism, sexism, and bigotry, the paragraph implies that America’s past includes more than these things. Whoddathunkit?
The second paragraph just baffles me. None of the textbooks I read in school ever said anything about U.S. history being “the story of the conquest and rape of a continent.” And how do Allen and Schweikart know that “students are berated with tales of the Founders as self-interested politicians” unless they’re doing the berating (sorry, that one slipped out).
The third paragraph elaborates on the selfishness of the phrase on the spine. Why does an “honest evaluation of the history of the United States” have to be a comparison? Also, empty phrases like “city on the hill” and “beacon of liberty” serve only to trivialize an honest evaluation of any country’s history.
After reading the back, the main concern I have about Patriot’s is that it will fall victim to pointing out the better aspects of America’s history while omitting the worse. I’m afraid it will deliberately tell only one side of the story. In People’s, Zinn warns against this by saying, “One can outright lie about the past. Or one can omit facts which might lead to unacceptable conclusions […] outright lying or omission takes the risk of discovery which, when made, might arouse the reader to rebel against the writer.” (8) You can see my concern – I’m already rebelling against Patriot’s and I haven’t even opened it up yet.
Unfortunately, the beginning of Patriot’s doesn’t inspire any more hope in me, but it does help cement my idea of who this book is written for. Patriot’s starts with an interview of its co-author Harry Schweikart by Rush Limbaugh. There’s one of two reasons for doing this. Either they’re trying to further prove who the book is for (hint, hint, it’s conservatives) [clue #1]or they’re trying to sell more books. Neither possibility bodes well for Patriot’s since the authors/publishers either think their targeted audience is too dumb to realize that Patriot’s is written just for them or they don’t trust their book to stand on its own without the help of the big dog himself, Captain Restraint – Rush Limbaugh.
My real problem with the Limbaugh interview, however, is the bold message it sends to any reader who is not an out-and-out right-wing conservative (hey, that’s me!). As I already said, I’m afraid Patriot’s will be nothing more than just one long tome of chest-pumping, flag waving, “real” American patriotism wrapped up in the guise of history. If the Limbaugh praise is foreshadowing this, Patriot’s is going to get old real fast because the only purpose that type of prose serves is to make words like patriot, liberty, and freedom meaningless.
The interview could be picked apart, but it suffers from two problems, both of which are common with Limbaugh. The first is the antagonism inherent in conservatives like Limbaugh. You’re either with them or against them. They are right, so you are wrong. The second problem is the psychopathic desire to protect their beliefs. Do not try to confuse them with facts. There is only one side of the story worth telling and that is the side they believe in (surprise!). This desire is usually manifested by someone like Limbaugh claiming victimhood in order to rally any like-minded listeners to support whatever belief is the topic of the day. If you have any doubts, you are not needed. The white man marches on… without you.
The introduction of Patriot’s brings up another concern I have with this book. Patriot’s is aggressive to the point of insulting. The authors write as if the reader is a blank slate, completely incapable of forming independent thoughts or noticing contradicting statements. In the absence of such readers, the only way this works is when the audience wholeheartedly agrees with the authors before reading even the first sentence.[Clue #2]
In the introduction, Patriot’s authors claim that America and its Founding Fathers are extraordinary because they are full of character. Unfortunately for them, however, praising character in prose also means being selfish and delusional. They say, “No society is free from corruption. The difference is that in America, corruption is viewed as the exception, not the rule.” It makes one wonder why the US isn’t the least corrupt country in the world. I guess that in Chile and Qatar, less corruption than in America is viewed as the rule.
Patriot’s authors also fall into a trap of their own design in two ways. First, they can’t even beat the leftists/Marxists at their own game. The introduction mentions no women, no black men, no Native Americans, and only two Europeans – Andrew Carnegie and Arnold Schwarzenegger (seriously) [clue #3]. They quote Lincoln, but don’t give him credit (“the United States is the ‘last, best hope’ of earth”) and they completely fail to either quote or give credit to Martin Luther King Jr. (“But it was not the color of the skin of the people who came here that made them special, it was the content of their character.”). Come on, Patriot’s! Show them fascist/Marxist/commies whose boss! They are getting history all wrong because they focus on women and black people instead of character, right? So show them that it’s the character of women and black people that made this nation what it is.
But Patriot’s can’t beat any other version of history at its own game. It doesn’t work in their style of argument. Engaging with any other side, in any way except with knee-jerk insults, would lend validity to that other side, which can’t happen in Lambaughland because everything is black or white, right or wrong. History includes what they say and only what they say. For example, the authors write, “Honor counted to founding patriots like Adams, Jefferson, Washington, and then later, Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. Character counted. Property was also important; no denying that, because with property came liberty.” But they fail to mention that with a 21-year-old, white, property-owning penis came the right to vote. I guess women and black people didn’t count that much to the founding patriots.
Let’s tally the clues to see what kind of reader Patriot’s is intended for:
  1. They’re trying to further prove who the book is for (hint, hint, it’s conservatives)
  2. The only way Patriot’s works is when the audience wholeheartedly agrees with the authors before reading even the first sentence
  3. The introduction mentions no women, no black men, no Native Americans, and only two Europeans
So if you’re a conservative white male who wants a slap on the back, you’re in luck. So far, Patriot’s is for you. And it’s here to further solidify beliefs with cut and pasted facts. You won’t be wrong, you just won’t know the whole story.

I really hope Patriot’s doesn’t turn out this way, but everything before the first chapter leads me to believe it will. The authors are insulting to me and I’m their preferred audience member. I’m a white, American male. I’m their guy (sort of). I can only imagine how my mother or sister would feel reading this.