Jump to content
The Education Forum

S.T. Patrick

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About S.T. Patrick

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Publishing "garrison: The Journal of History & Deep Politics" and hosting "The Midnight Writer News Show"

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Patterson's questionable decisions can be traced back even further. He does the Jeffrey Epstein book Filthy Rich in 2016 and then teams with Bill Clinton in 2018 for The President is Missing. No author with any tie to Clinton (or yes, Trump) can do an honest job on Epstein and no author doing an honest job on Epstein can then perpetuate a tie or friendship with Clinton (or yes, Trump). We can always take morsels from books we despise or discount. It's rare that every page is a waste, but with so many books yet to read, I wouldn't spend one precious evening on Patterson's work. There is a point with an author like Dan Brown where you may not believe his linkage or what he says in literal word-by-word form (not his history, at least), but Brown will give you what I call "thinking points," points where you can say "Okay, I don't believe it's that specific thing, but I'm going to think about this and look into this some more. I'll read more non-fiction writers on this topic." I put Brad Meltzer and similar writers in similar but lesser categories. Meltzer is "History Channel conspiracy," meaning, to me, that the History Channel is notorious for spending 50 minutes on why an alternative theory is true. Then, in the last ten minutes of the program, they bring a "real expert" on to dismantle the last 50 minutes and tell you its just paranoia. I never believe that Meltzer believes it. But Patterson? Too many trees die for Patterson to have such a comfortable lifestyle.
  2. Do you think Posner thought the TV film "The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald" was commercializing the death? He also certainly plugged his own book all over the American media. Did the proceeds go to charity or something or is that "commercializing"? Again, GP makes an odd argument.
  3. Is this the same Kennedy family that delighted in honoring George H.W. Bush with the "Courage" award? As much as I respect JFK and RFK - and to some extent RFK Jr (though his and other family members' presence in Epstein's black book bothers me A LOT) - the family (the further you get from JFK and RFK) hasn't made a lot of great decisions that honor the memories, legacy, or murders of their ancestors (JFK Jr excepted). Bob Dylan honored JFK more in one song than his family members have done throughout the entirety of the 2000s. For that matter, Oliver Stone honored him more in one film. And further, the authors and posters here honor him more every day than his own family does currently. So, that "What about the family?" stuff (57 years later) falls flat to me.
  4. I think its likely that Wolfman is Jack. We can argue all day about who the "best" DJ of the era was (most arguments would probably be regional). But American Graffiti sort of cemented Wolfman Jack as the voice of the era, whether one likes his style and voice or not. With all of the other references of the era, I think trying to assume knowledge deeper than that may be assuming a lot. I think Larry has it pegged. Again, like him or not, I think Wolfman Jack is the voice of the era (if you don't count Dick Clark, who also has a long list of detractors in radio). Personally, I like both and still stream their syndicated repeats today, but Ive long been a fan of radio and know that both had a list of enemies as long as their list of fans.
  5. What about the Waldron books? And I'm including the Watergate book since its more of a JFK assassination book anyway.
  6. He's a pretty prolific guy. He's had Bullyocracy finished for some time. He just had to adjust it to include recent events. I really like his books quite a bit. Survival of the Richest is a primer for economic realities of the average person today, and the two "conspiracy works" (for lack of a better phrase) - Hidden History and Crimes and Cover-Ups are as good as the Jonathan Vankin collections. I've now read all four and I suggest them highly, as I do with your three, Jim.
  7. No. I always think U.S. nuke deals are hypocritical, to some degree, but evil? No. Personally, Id rather we not have them either.
  8. Probably the same as the chances that she praises a Republican politician... which she never does, not without an accompanying shot at the same politician. She's not one to praise politicians in general, but it's difficult for me to speak for Caitlin. I don't think playing cheerleader for a party is on her to-do list. Any party. Anywhere. Frankly, if someone wants a cheerleader for any of the other candidates, there are stations on every television that will do that. Caitlin allows free reign for me to use her work. I read many of the essays she does, but she is prolific. I cannot read them all. I usually narrow it down to five for an issue of the magazine, and then I usually choose one. If I absolutely cannot decide between two, I use both. It helps if the idea behind one of them links to something else being done in that issue. But she's one voice. I've also gotten emails saying that I have ZERO writers that are right-leaning. And I can't say they are wrong. It isn't intentional. I just don't want a party cheerleader for either party. There is right-leaning anti-party dissent (extensions of the Ron Paul candidacies), but I haven't found that writer yet. We are starting to see some really strong left-leaning anti-party dissenters now (the people you named not being a fan of). But if I found a Republican cheerleader and a Democratic cheerleader, I'd be the same as any talking head CNN show (Crossfire? Capital Gang?). And that's not the purpose of the magazine. Short story... when I first had the magazine in my head, I envisioned it in a classroom. I saw a teacher saying "Okay, we've read the textbook.... Lee Oswald killed Kennedy, Sirhan killed RFK, Ray killed MLK, John Dean is the hero of Watergate, Truman had to drop the bomb on Hiroshima to save lives, LBJ was a great president, Ike was a hero, Carter was just a down home country boy, Saddam was the face of evil in the modern world, and Osama did 9/11....... now...... (the teacher pulls out a few articles from garrison).... here's another perspective...." As John Judge said, "There are other paradigms." I didn't envision making sure I had a Warren supporter and Pete supporter and a Biden supporter and a Trump supporter and so on and so forth. I wanted to get people who would challenge what will be in the textbooks, if it isn't already there now. That's honestly the scene I imagined. I knew I wanted DiEugenio on JFK, Pease on RFK, Hougan on Watergate, Griffin on 9/11, Joe Green on whatever he wanted to do because I think he's great, and then we'd go outward from there. That said, I'm still learning, we are still expanding the writers and perspectives in each issue, and I'm doing the best I can. Sorry if the explanation was a bit lengthy
  9. LOL. Agreed, Joe. My experience was being on the textbook committees of schools as an International Baccalaureate and Advanced Placement History teacher for over a decade. I used McGraw Hill and Cengage because they are the biggest. The criticism could be aimed at any textbook publisher. But defending your wife is understood. All good.
  10. Thank you, Rob. I appreciate that. Potash is a way in to so many good stories that merge pop culture and intel. He's a gold mine that I hope we can keep on board.
  11. I don't take it personally, no. Once the decision is made to have a writer onboard, I allow them a lot of freedom. I also get protective of them. I make a promise to support their careers and work any way I can, and I try to do that. I feel blessed for the opportunity to have everyone we do have onboard. But I understand that it won't please everyone. I've said this openly: if it DID please everyone, I'd think we were doing something wrong, because I would think we were too one-minded, sticking too much to one ideological road, so to speak. I don't plan on agreeing with every writer or every perspective. I don't plan on the writers every wholly agreeing with one another. And that also goes for the readers. I just hope we can all be open to writers and ideas that we may not want to agree with or that we may not agree with for a variety of reasons. I honestly have zero interest in the Right-Left paradigm. To me, there is mainstream history one one side (History Channel, PBS, McGraw-Hill, Cengage, the big publishers, etc) and then there is us on the other side. Whether I have agreed with every article's conclusions or not, I am quite confident that the conclusions the writers have will not be given a fair shake in the next McGraw-Hill textbook that will find its way into schools across America. I respect and encourage the writers' ability to historically dissent, even if I'm not 100% in on the conclusion. But yes, I agree with you that I like a good factual conversation. Yes. And I respect your ability as a reader to challenge what is in the article after you've read it. You aren't the bad guy to me. You're doing what any reader should do. The History Channel, PBS, McGraw-Hill, the big publishers and Big Media.... they are the bad guys to me. So I welcome your input, yes. And I thank you.
  12. Thanks! Your contributions have been amazing, and I'm excited to see what's coming from you in the future.
  13. I appreciate you giving it a shot, Cliff. I do. We aren't going to make everyone happy, and I understand that, but I appreciate you giving us a shot. I should say that Elizabeth considers herself a leftist and Caitlin calls herself a "bogan socialist." I think both are supporting Sanders in the DNC race, from what I can tell. But yes, they are more in line with Aaron Mate, who writes for The Nation, and Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone. They also tend to align with Consortium News. I can understand how that may not be your thing. I can. But, as I said, I truly appreciate you reading the first two. I do.
  14. I would not say that it's Dem bashing. Can you say the party had a good week... or month? Neither of the big two parties are beyond criticism. Those who self-identify with the left will probably always say we are "too right" and those who align with the right will say we are "too left." And that's not hyperbole. I've had a pretty major (everyone here would recognize his name) right-leaning journalist say he thinks it heavily leans left (he was observing and not criticizing). I've also had a leftist intellectual (or, that's what everyone calls him) ask if it was going rightward. Both read it (or so they say). Frankly, I'm fine with that. I think it's fair. I wouldn't want to read a magazine that just patted my own beliefs on the back. I like being challenged. A reader should not assume that I agree with all the articles written. I wrote that in the first essay of the first issue. I like being challenged. I'm sorry there are those who don't or won't like it. I wish that weren't the case. But I know that it will be.
  • Create New...