History Revised, from the Self-Centered POV

Historical revisionism is alive and well in the New Socialist America.

What do you get when you have a liberal mind-set, an ambiguous moral compass, no regard for historical accuracy,  a highly-paid team of “comic” writers, a high sense of self-regard, an even higher sense of your own opinion, an infinite supply of narcissistic-colored glasses, and a thirty minute “news parody” show of your very own?  You get Jon Stewart, a man who doesn’t parody of the news nearly as much as he pushes his own personal views upon a slathering, ignorant audience.

HELLO TOPIC: Stewart thinks that Truman is a war criminal for dropping the bombs on Japan. I’ve heard this bit of nonsensical liberal revisionist history before. I’ve always felt that was worthless, but to my shame, I’ve never taken the time to do the research necessary to refute the charges.  It took Bill Whittle six minutes of googling to debunk Stewart’s ignorant assertions. Though, it did take almost seventeen minutes to explain them.

You should go watch Whittle’s PJTV video thingie. It’s a good one.

LATER: What color glasses are narcissistic-colored glasses? I suspect they’re pink. 

A LITTLE LATER: Why do conservative, logical people appear on Stewart’s show anyway? It’s nonsense and should be treated with the same respect given to silly parody shows like Reno 911!  and reality TV shows like Hogan Knows Best and Joe Millionaire. Which is to say, it should be given no respect and should not be taken seriously.

102 Minutes, More

So, I’ve just finished writing my previous post on the History Channel documentary, 102 Minutes That Changed America. (You might want to read that one first, to get an idea of what brought about this post.)

Watching the documentary brings back all the fear and anxiety I felt back in 2001. It brings back all the resolve I felt back in 2002. And I can’t help but wonder, after that, who can question Afghanistan or Iraq? Who can question the worth of establishing firm democratic republic ideals in Afghanistan or Iraq? Is there anyone who can still question why we are there? 

I’ve railed against people who say that the events of 9/11 are our fault. We were clearly the victims on that day. But just because we were the victim doesn’t mean that we couldn’t have avoided it. Had we taken our heads out of our collective dot com asses and looked at what was happening in the Middle East with Muslim extremism/fascism, could 9/11 have been avoided? I don’t know. (Though at this point, I suppose the argument is, at best, academic. At worst, it is partisan hackery. Oy. So let’s skip that minefield altogether and move on to the present and the future.)

What I do know is that we can’t afford to take our attention away now. It’s clear, it’s been made very clear, what will happen if we let our guard down, if we don’t take control of the people who would harm us, if we don’t establish some sort of pro-American democratic republic somewhere in the Middle East.

Have we made mistakes? I’m sure we have. Somewhere. But I don’t think that the decision to go into Afghanistan or Iraq was one of them. Debate on that issue is mostly pointless rhetoric anyway (which is why I avoided it above), used by political hacks to avoid the real issue: we’re there now, so where do we go from here?

What we need now is decisive leadership that will give us security from the same extremism that harmed us on 9/11/2001. What we need now is leadership with a vision to establish that democratic republic or two in the Middle East. What we need now is leadership that will take us forward, not look back and whine about unchangeable past events.

What we need now is leadership with imagination, with honor, with plans, and with balls. Which is why I’m voting for Palin this November. So I guess that means I’ll vote for McCain, too, by default.

[And gawd, did I ever not mean to take this post into a McCain/Palin pitch. But I did. Dammit. I hate it when people turn 9/11 into a political tennis ball, praising one candidate or another, supporting one side or another. But there you have it. My praise of a 9/11 documentary turned into a political pitch. Oy. My inner muse, she is a capricious bitch who likes to take sharp turns without warning me.]

102 Minutes

I just watched a documentary, 102 Minutes That Changed America, on the History Channel.

I’ve seen a lot of documentaries on 9/11. Most just rehash the coverage we all watched. This one, however, presented video I’d not yet seen. Most of it was amateur video, with all the crazy camera movements you’d expect. [I know now why a lot of 9/11 survivors couldn’t watch Cloverfield.] Oh, I’ve seen hours and hours of footage from news helicopters and such, and I’ve read witness accounts of the events, but until this documentary, I didn’t realize truly how apocalyptic it must have seemed on the ground.

It shows the rolling, smothering waves of debris and smoke from the perspective of the people running from it. It shows them running with the smoke seemingly giving chase behind. And you know that the smoke is going to catch them because you’ve seen professional news footage of them walking out covered in debris later on, but you hold your breath anyway, hoping that they could run a little faster or somehow get away from it because it seems so ominous, so alive, so threatening. Eventually it consumes them, and then consumes the cameraman, and then the world goes black. All you hear is the gasps of the cameraman as he struggles to breathe through the waves of debris in the air.

Powerful stuff, that.

You should see the documentary. It was very good, the best I’ve seen of the type yet.