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. 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.
  2. No. I always think U.S. nuke deals are hypocritical, to some degree, but evil? No. Personally, Id rather we not have them either.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Thanks! Your contributions have been amazing, and I'm excited to see what's coming from you in the future.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Issue 004 of garrison.: The Journal of History & Deep Politics is now available at our LuLu page: http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/MidnightWriterNews The preview from the LuLu page: 228 pages. In this, the fourth issue of garrison.: The Journal of History & Deep Politics, we delve into the idea of what America believes and why they believe it. Joseph Green contributed the cover story, the brilliant "On the Origins of Seditious Discourse." New to garrison this issue are Elizabeth Lea Vos (Russiagate), John Potash (Jeffrey Epstein), Douglas Caddy (Watergate), Steve Ubaney (Was FDR Murdered?), J. Gary Shaw (Rose Cherami), and Adam Gorightly (Kennedy assassination research). Returning are Edgar Tatro (Lee Harvey Oswald), Jim DiEugenio (Watergate), David Ray Griffin (9/11), Jim Hougan (Richard Nixon), Kevin Ryan (9/11), Donald Jeffries (Natalee Holloway), Richard Bartholomew (JFK assassination), Randy Benson (Lee Harvey Oswald), Dr. Michael Chesser (JFK autopsy), and Walt Brown (JFK assassination). We also have coverage of the Iowa caucuses from both Caitlin Johnstone and Twitter nation. Thanks! S.T. Patrick
  11. That's very kind of Mr. Curtin to do that and kind of Mr. Rockwell to print it. Issue 004 will release by week's end.
  12. Its not that uncommon for companies to pay people who have passed away. It is usually given to their families, especially when its a spouse. The person did do the work/time, so they do get paid.
  13. Is Tulane public or private? If it's public, they should have publicly available records, payment history, etc., for every faculty member who has taught on campus or on a satellite campus. That would be a pretty easy thing to find, it would seem, for a school.
  14. I didn't get to see JDW speak this year. I think I was at CAPA then. If it was Friday, I was at CAPA. I can see where Haslam would, yes. The stories are tied to the extent that Haslam's doesn't depend on hers, but hers depends on Haslam's.
  • Create New...