Traditional journalists at least strove for objectivity, which made for a vastly superior product to that of today’s advocacy journalists.

I think if he’d wanted to place it with a university press he might have been compelled to incorporate a proper set of notes and bibliography.

Zinn’s book is filled with plagiarism, quotations out of context (in many cases, reversing meaning) and outright error and falsification, failing standards of historical and ethical scholarship.

Zinn didn’t make a habit of constructing a proper architecture of references. His dissertation advisor may have insisted on it in 1959, but it’s usually absent from his books.

Similarly, my sister-in-law was also shocked when I pointed out how awful Zinn’s false narrative is and how harmful it will be for her children. She has a graduate degree from Georgetown and thought the book the most influential she ever read.

Grabar’s exhaustive research and documentation does just cites multiple alternative sources – heaps of sources and books that Zinn intentionally ignored. Willfully and intentionally ignored. And, unlike Zinn, she demonstrates how an author should source background material

Ironically the mantra in the ’60’s from radicals like Zinn was to not trust anyone over thirty and to question authority. Grabar makes the case. Zinn’s work should never have ever been trusted and every word he wrote, and those of his sources should be questioned. It should be placed in the dust bin and ignored.

But it’s more than the future. The use of Zinn’s “history” in a public school, really any school, borders on criminal. Our children deserve better. Grabar’s book provides the antidote to remove the scales from the eyes of a generation of children who have been subjected to Zinn’s “work”. Buy this book and gift it to those who have been cheated out of an education! Buy it now. They need to begin questioning what they’ve been taught!

Again, what he said was that ‘objectivity’ is impossible, not that there is no truth. And he’s right. Some sort of normative consideration is incorporated into what you deem salient and what you don’t.

The common overarching theme among postmodernists is their abiding belief that the narrow focus they are trapped in is inescapable by anyone. As objectivity is the surest bridge to a changed perspective, it is the bridge they seek to deny and destroy if possible. Yet quite obviously they cannot. Best to avoid these chronically frustrated pissants. They see enemies everywhere.

The odd thing, in retrospect, was the aristocratic grandeur and reverence Democrats had for the Presidency and America as the shining city on a hill. It seems so … 1997.

The film is almost humorous for its hard-hitting liberal tropes, completely unexamined of course, that gun control and climate change were the obvious principled issues and the right guy as President, i.e. Michael Douglas at the peak of his powers, could make that right (and get the girl!) with a single speech.

Almost twenty years later that’s still where Democrats are and no smarter that their signature issues haven’t taken hold no matter what they do.

Democrats have become so anti-American that I question whether they can ever return to the “West Wing-ish” love for the United States they claimed not long ago.