Will History Channel and/or Matt Damon Get to the Bottom of 9/11?


Via Drudge, Patrick Courrielche takes a few swipes at the History Channel's new celebrity-filled documentary based on Howard Zinn's atrocious A People's History of the United States. The book is a favorite of actor and insufferable lefty Matt Damon, who produced the film and managed to get big name stars like Viggo Mortenson, Marisa Tomei, Morgan Freeman, Don Cheadle, Sean Penn, Rosario Dawson, Josh Brolin, Rosario Dawson, Danny Glover, and Casey Affleck to participate (Incidentally, the moment Damon's mawkish class war movie Good Will Hunting collapsed was the scene in which the genius-janitor-hero displayed his depth of knowledge by referencing Zinn's "mind-blowing" book). Courrielche should have mentioned that Zinn isn't just a bad historian, he's also a 9/11 truther:  

Endorsement of The New Pearl Harbor: "David Ray Griffin has done admirable and painstaking research in reviewing the mysteries surrounding the 9-11 attacks. It is the most persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event."

Endorsement of Debunking 9/11 Debunking: "Considering how the 9/11 tragedy has been used by the Bush administration to propel us into immoral wars again and again, I believe that David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed."

And yes, I realize that Zinn, like Sarah Palin, is allowing himself enough wiggle room to claim that he is only suggesting that "questions remain" and that the insane writings of David Ray Griffin should be "answered" by responsible historians.

I blogged Zinn's revisionist history for kids here, which pointed out that People's History is so awful even the socialist magazine Dissent dissed it.


NEXT: A Tale of Two Forensic Scandals: Ontario vs. Mississippi

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So, did Rosario Dawson appear in the film?

    1. She’s gorgeous enough to mention twice.

      1. Wait, wasn’t she the girl in Clerks 2? Beautiful?

          1. Okay, she looks better there than she did in Clerks 2. But that was also a Kevin Smith movie, which can make anyone look bad.

            1. I like her hair in this one as well. Also netter (and NSFW).

              1. JW, you just linked to the only worthwhile 5 seconds of that movie.

      2. And another name to add to my hate fuck fantasy list

  2. A People’s History was a required book in my (required) high school AP Government class. Our teacher always did a good job about being crypic and noncommital regarding his political views. I always felt that he leaned libertarian (mostly because he really liked me, despite my refusal to do homework), but I never did open this book. Now I’m glad I didn’t.

    1. the moment Damon’s mawkish class war movie Good Will Hunting collapsed was the scene in which the genius-janitor-hero displayed his depth of knowledge by referencing Zinn’s “mind-blowing” book

      Word. Or words. Whatever. I wanted to pump my fist and say “Yeah!” but then I thought, Huh? Book-smart punk regurgitates Stuff He Doesn’t Understand to get in the pants of Chick He Just Met? He deserved Robin Williams.

    2. The teacher that required we read it never hid his intentions–he flat out admitted to being a socialist after my provocations. He had the class so indoctrinated we had ‘debate’ days that were more like ‘yell at Chad’ days.
      All was right in the world, though, as that summer I stuffed an M80 into that book and made it snow that drivel.


    1. Fuck… beat me to it.

    2. You ale worthress, Matt Damon!

  4. Zinn is an industrial strength hack and his popularity on the left makes all the bitching about “reality” and “fact” and “science” ring mighty hollow.

  5. Incidentally, the moment Damon’s mawkish class war movie Good Will Hunting collapsed….

    Lark! Reason decrees that box office triumph, Best Picture nominee, and culturally enduring Good Will Hunting “collapsed”, and so it must be true!

    …..insane writings of David Ray Griffin should be “answered” by responsible historians.

    Lo, Reason declares, lo it is forever true! David Ray Griffin is “insane” because he doesn’t think Arabs have superpowers!

    What’s that? You ask for reasons why a classic movie “collapsed” and an explanation for why we call a respected old man “insane”?!? You dare question us, rabble? Off with your heads!

    So Matt Damon doesn’t worship the government and David Ray Griffin points out that this is controlled demolition (as if there’s any doubt).

    Look, it’s cool that you’re a coward and that your moral code is too flimsy to stand up to the government about anything less trivial than, like, tax dollars subsidizing ‘Sesame Street’, but are you so servile to the government that you have to, ya know, lie about murder? Can’t you just, like, keep your cowardly mouth shut about it (or, ya know, do with it what you neo-cons always like to do with your mouth….use it to pop Viagara or, well….)

  6. Viggo Mortenson, Marisa Tomei, Morgan Freeman, Don Cheadle, Sean Penn, Rosario Dawson, Josh Brolin, Rosario Dawson, Danny Glover, and Casey Affleck

    Hey, how’d they get my enemies list?

  7. PS I forgot one thing:


  8. I believe that David Ray Griffin’s provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed.

    Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.

    **steely eyed squinting**

  9. A History prof had a great underhanded way to teach Zinn’s book. He’d have students read section detailing some the worst atrocities of America, so all these college freshmen are ready to go lecture their parents about American-History’s Greatest Monster.

    Then he’d require them to write a paper on why people lined up and still line up to enter this hellhole. [and don’t cite the conman Chomsky]

  10. I remember it like it was last week.

    Considering how Obama’s birth has been used by Obama to propel us into having a beige dunce for president, I believe that the Birthers’ provocative questions deserve to be investigated and addressed. They’ve done admirable and painstaking research in reviewing the mysteries surrounding the birth of this dipshit, and theirs is a persuasive argument for further investigation of that troubling event.

    ?Sarah Palin

    1. C’mon, you’re making this up – she didn’t say “beige” dunce.

  11. 9/11 truthers are a diverse bunch are they not? i’d say howard zinn, rosie o’donnell and van jones have very little in common with alex jones and a lot of ron paul voters who are 9/11 truthers.

    also, it’s so funny how reason.com does all they can do to distance themselves and make snide remarks about truthers, infowars.com, the fringe-ier elements of the ron paul movement, etc. i love reason but i think the staff are scared of being associated cause they crave mainstreaming their views (understandably, i do too) and being any kind of a conspiracy theorist kills that dream as far as the mainstream media are concerned.

    1. The reason I distance myself from nutbags is that I crave mainstreaming myself. If not for that, I’d be all like “hey, nutbags, I totally subscribe to your newsletter!”

      1. Thank you for your support.

    2. Maybe it’s because crackpot theories are for crackpots. I dislike the government a lot. But it had / has no reason to perpetrate something like 9/11. None. With its vast propaganda apparatus, and an already apathetic public, it can get away with all the crap it wants without blowing up its own buildings.

      1. TJ, I agree with you that a lot of the people at Reason and elsewhere won’t even mention Building 7 (let alone show the videos) is ’cause they know it’ll hurt their careers. But I don’t think that that’s so “understandable”. I think that makes them cowards.

        Also, why is it that every, single reply about “Truthers” (“crackpot”, “has no reason”, Lyndon Larouche) always discusses it from this effeminate, nebulous, sociological point of view? Can’t you guys wrap your hive-minded brains around, like, concrete data and the laws of physics? Or is it all just about the groupthink?

        These guys here the word “symmetrical collapse at the speed of gravity demonstrates that structural elements must have been removed prior to onset of collapse” and their brains just short-circuit. These effeminate freaks can’t even change their own oil, how the heck are they gonna be able to wrap their decaying brains around this?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6D4dla17aA

        1. Oh, golly, David, you so impress me with your science. BTW, it’s “hear”, and “symmetrical collapse… etc.” is a phrase, not a word.

          The reason everyone brings up the “effeminate” motive is because anything the government got out of 9/11, it could have gotten from far cheaper, far less conspiratorial methods.

          As for the “symmetry”, here’s a link for you.

          1. Oh, man, you’ve devastated me by pointing out a correction I made in a typo.

            BTW, I tuned out to the article when they said that the Super-powered Arabs took over the planes with “box cutters”, when that claim was long ago admitted to be bogus – even by the FBI – as the lone basis for it was phone calls from Barbara Olsen to Ted Olsen (a government bureaucrat, and yet a hero to the “conservatives”) that are now admitted to have never taken place.

            So there goes that one, too.

            I just like snapping the wires off of hamster cages and then lighting lighting fires inside it and then waiting, waiting, and waiting for it to symmetrically collapse. Never does.

            (I actually lied there – I read about six paragraphs deeper and, man, those Viagara-popping neo-cons have brains that are as flagrantly narcissistic as their penises are limp!)


    1. dammit – beat me to it.

      by a mile.

      *hangs antlers in shame*

      1. That’ll teach you to spend all your time hanging out with the reprobates over at grylliade.

        1. 🙂

          haven’t hung out there in years. I’m not even registered on their new site!

  13. actually howard zinn is unusual among lefty 9/11 truthers (of which there are few). it’s funny because as much as the left has hated bush this decade most of them don’t think he had anything to do with 9/11 beyond negligence or something along those lines. most 9/11 truthers are the more fringe conservatives (the kind who didn’t like bush) and libertarians as well as apolitical teens and 20 somethings.

    it’s seems you can divide libertarians into 2 groups. the ones who think government is too big and it’s ineffective and incompetent like the more mainstream libertarians ( john stossell, tucker carlson, the reason staff, south park guys, penn and teller being celebrity examples) and then there are the ones who think government is too big and it’s becoming this 1984-like nightmare (jim marrs, alex jones and ron paul libertarians and conspiracy theorists). both groups think the patriot act, illegal wiretapping etc. are bad but the conspiracy theorists think more is going on.

    1. Truthers are not lefty?

      They identify as Democrats by a 7-1 margin over Republicans.

      Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure.

      Republicans reject that view and, by a 7-to-1 margin, say the President did not know in advance about the attacks. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 18% believe the President knew and 57% take the opposite view.

      1. That poll is referring only to thoughts about George W. Bush.

        I don’t know that it’s a good thing to turn a mass murder investigation to a marketing demographics exercise, but I can tell you that the “Truther” community that I go to for info – Jesse Ventura, Alex Jones, Jason Bermas, AE911Truth.org, and others – tend to be traditional conservatives.

        It’s just that “conservatism” used to be associated with being skeptical of power and bigness (hence, wanting to restrain it), but, obviously, in the past two decades or so that paradigm has obviously been inverted and now it’s supposed “conservatives” who celebrate, like, Wal-Mart, the Pentagon, and even China(?!?).

        So, by my definition of “conservative”, I’d say that the majority of ’em would be dubious about the government’s story.

      2. yeah but i bet you, there were more “9/11 was an inside job” shirts at ron paul rallys then there were at obama (or even nader) rallies in the last election.

        1. Yeah, that’s a safe bet.

          But the murderers and their toadies in the media (like the writer of this post insulting Matt Damon) know that, the more they can just associate the ideas with an identity people don’t like (picketing left-wing radicals), the quicker that others will side with them.

          For most people – obviously here at Reason and elsewhere – I think it’s 99% about identities. I don’t think they give two damns about the murder of 3,000 souls (either now or in 2001), I think it’s all just an excuse for them to have a team.

          So even though Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones and about 90% of the “Truthers” that I know could snap these little military-worshiping nothings in two, the impotent (Rush Limbaugh, et al.) or flaming homosexual (Glenn Beck, et al.) neo-cons still strike a pose as the tough conservatives. They’re not. They’re freaks who can’t even love women, which is why they need Viagara and why their wives are all getting plugged by virile young Mexicans on the side.

  14. History Channel’s new celebrity-filled documentary based on Howard Zinn’s atrocious A People’s History of the United States.

    Hmm, I will have to threaten my TiVo with waterboarding to stop it from recording this crap instead of Pawn Stars . . .

  15. Zinn is a hack even by lefty historian’s standards.

    1. Just to clarify, most real historians find A People’s History of the United States as having, at best, limited usefulness. It’s not the politics, but that it’s bad, one-sided history.

  16. Matt Damon like movies, Matt Damon like movies lots.

  17. “The book is a favorite of actor and insufferable lefty Matt Damon”….

    “Incidentally, the moment Damon’s mawkish class war movie Good Will Hunting collapsed“….

    “….insane writings of David Ray Griffin….”

    Have you ever noticed how blowhards like to casually spout their totally subjective opinions like they’re empirical facts?

    If you find Matt Damon “insufferable”, then just don’t watch his movies or write about him. (I don’t know how you call somebody who you don’t know “insufferable”, but whatever.)

    And Good Will Hunting was a box office smash and a Best Picture nominee, so there goes that one.

    Finally, if David Ray Griffin is “insane”, then why not, like, have the dignity to prove it instead of just declaring that an honest, scholarly old man is crazy?

    But actually, The History Channel has “gotten to the bottom of 9/11” in about 20 different government-approved “documentaries”.

    And if the government is right about 9/11 (Super-powered Arabs did it! Governments never murder!) then, like, I guess this video is a fake, eh?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5akpnIFK-RM

    (Incidentally, a libertarian who isn’t a government-worshiping coward, Jesse Ventura, will be talking about this same subject tonight at 10:00 on TruTV!)

    1. Jeebus H on a Harley. Who blew the truther dog-whistle?

      1. It makes my brains hurt.

    2. David,

      Please do me a favor and die a slow, agonizing death from bone cancer.

      Thank you.


      1. So, when somebody doesn’t toe the company line on Matt Damon or 9/11….they get lame insults and somebody hoping they’ll die.

        You’re, uh, you’re cool, guys!

        1. We especially require people to tow the lion on Matt Damon.

          1. Hey, I don’t like Michael Bay movies. So guess what? I don’t watch ’em.*

            The writer said that Matt Damon’s signature movie was bad and that he thinks he’s “insufferable”. So, like, why the hell is he babbling about it?

            *Incidentally, why don’t supposed “libertarians” get angry at the hundreds of millions of tax dollars that are being spent on military propaganda, such as Michael Bay’s movies? Transformers 2 alone was financed by $30m of our tax dollars, and dozens and dozens of movies and TV shows each year receive millions of dollars from the DHS and DoD and other military bureaucrats. I kinda think that people who think that the government’s too greedy and powerful would, ya know, call attention to this.

            No, who cares about hundreds of millions of tax dollars used for propaganda? Matt Damon remains friends with a liberal, we’ll get outraged at that!

            1. It has nothing to do with Matt Damon, I just like it when people die from cancer.

              So, David, please die from from malignant osteosarcoma soon!

              1. Right. So you hate Matt Damon and want strangers to die.

                Hilarious, pal. Piercing humor if ever it’s been written.

        2. Soooooo, you’re expressing your opinion about someone else having the temerity to express their opinion contrary to yours and what’s worse, no one should be expressing their opinion about things they don’t like in the first place. They should instead boycott those things and suffer in silence.

          Way to go there, chief. Game. Set. Match.

          1. Whoa, snap! You nailed me!

            I think that all the Viagara you impotent neo-cons need to love women has totally fried your neuronal pathways.

            The writer of this post wrote a slew of opinions as if they were facts. I never expressed any problem with the fact that he hates Matt Damon or Good Will Hunting, I just think it’s bogus that he presents his opinions like they’re facts.

            I offer opinions all the time. But I don’t say that it’s a fact or that you’re “insane” for not agreeing with the fact that, like, I don’t like Michael Bay movies.

            But whatever, “chief”. Think what you want.

            1. Really? You actually think that the opinions expressed were done so as the absolute truth? Seriously?

              I know you truthers have trouble with that concept to begin with, but holy shit dude, just come out and admit you have a thing for Damon. It’s cool with me if you do, but be true to thyself.

              Oh, and neo-cons? Hang around and lurk for a while, sport; it helps you not to look quite so stupid and uninformed.

              1. Have trouble with what “concept”?

                And you keep saying, “Truthers” as if this is about one identity vs. another identity. Maybe it’s all about labels for you, but let’s drop them – let’s leave that to the ladies who love marketing stuff – and just focus on the data, okay?

                As far as having a “thing” for Matt Damon, well, from what I know about you Republicans and neo-cons….you shouldn’t really be talking about the masculinity of other dudes. Considering how rife your communities are with latent homosexuality and sexual impotence, I’d try to stay away from that subject.

                1. from what I know about you Republicans and neo-cons

                  Drink! (In my case at the moment, NyQuil) [grumble, grumble, cough]

                  He David, if you get tired of 9/11 and MD, there’s always chem-trails.

                2. ETO KURAM NA SMEKH!

                  1. As far as having a “thing” for Matt Damon, well, from what I know about you Republicans and neo-cons….

                    Nah, never mind. Irretrievable stupidity of this level defeats that phrase.

        3. at least you realize the absolute coolness going on hier.

          (particularly this moose, natch)

    4. David Ray Griffin and other 9/11 Truthers are insane because the undeniable events of 9/11 make no sense as a conspiracy theory. Why bother recruiting people to hijack planes and crash them into buildings if you’ve got them rigged for a controlled demolition? What if the planes miss or cut the demolition wires? Why rig WTC 7 with explosives but set them off after the collapse of the towers? Just blow up all the buildings. It would kill more people, and you could blame it on terrorists with truck bombs, like the first WTC attack.

      9/11 conspiracies are like JFK assassination conspiracies: they make no sense because they posit complex and risky means to do something that can be done in much simpler, less suspicious ways.

      1. Papaya,

        If it doesn’t make sense to you as a philosophical story – that is, if you can’t imagine a scenario where it would make sense – then just forget about philosophies and just look at the data and info.

        It’s kind of like if you’re trying to figure out how a car is going to drive: you can either try to imagine what it will look like or ask the salesman or watch the TV commercials….or you can just go right to the meat and potatoes – the information.

        So, if I were you, I’d look into Building 7 and look into the scientific papers at AE911Truth.org and at 911Blogger.com.

        More important than any of that, I guess, is whether you’re willing to be honest. If you’re not (for business reasons or whatever else), then I just wouldn’t waste my time.

        But here’s a good documentary about the data: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAS4TIYF68A

        1. It doesn’t make sense as a practical conspiracy, meaning nobody in a position to do it would do it that way. And sorry, the Loose Change stuff is b.s. It’s perfectly understandable how crashed airliners could bring down the WTC towers. No extra explosives are necessary.

          And if you did need extra explosives to bring them down, why not put them on the airliners? It would be a lot easier to do that than to surreptitiously rig the towers for demolition without all the tenants and maintenance people noticing. You’d also be sure they went off at the right time and the right place. Or do you think the hijackers were aiming for particular floors and hit them?

          1. That’s, like, more philosophy.

            I could reply with more hypothetical scenarios and, if we bantered back and forth for an hour, we might even have enough for a novel we could co-author (or, heck, maybe even the truth, eh?)

            But I have zero interest in carrying on about hypothetical scenarios here, ya know? There’s plenty of that elsewhere.

            Like I said, I think it’s best to just cut the fat and look to the core data. (For instance, that’s what AE911Truth.org does.)

      2. Papaya,

        It’s very sweet of you to use Ockham’s Razor with truthers, but that’s like explaining geometry to cats.

    5. Why do they always show the undamaged side of WTC7? Did that building only have one side?

      1. Just….like….just think about that for a minute, buddy.

        Yeah, there were 10-12 fires at Building 7. But even if the whole building was a raging inferno (obviously, it wasn’t at all), it still wouldn’t have collapsed at all, let alone symmetrically. Have you ever cooked burgers on a grill? Do the grates melt? Have you ever put a pot on a stove’s burners? Do they melt?

        No. And even if they did melt (which they didn’t at WTC7), then they wouldn’t all magically disintegrate simultaneously. It’s preposterous on its face.

        Of course, dozens of steel-framed buildings have had raging infernos….they don’t collapse. Here’s a thirty-second vid:

        Also, let’s not forget the hilarious video of the BBC reporting that Building 7 had “collapsed”….when it was standing just fine right behind their reporter! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdNEZVGIu04

        1. Wow, so an early news report was wrong? That never happens! Or is the BBC… In On The Conspiracy?

          If the government wanted to blow up the WTC and make it look like terrorists did it, why would they blow up the towers and WTC7 in a way that looked suspicious? Why go to all that trouble, and then do a standard demolition on WTC7, instead of one made to look like a truck bomb? Hell, it’s hard to rig a building for demolition, and really hard to do it without anyone there noticing, so why not just use a truck bomb or two? It’s simpler, closer to the “coverup” story, and has fewer things that can go wrong.

          The fact that strange things happened to the buildings on that day is actually evidence that it wasn’t an inside job, because the insiders would have arranged things so that there would be fewer anomalies for you folks to obsess over. Your argument is that there was a vast, secret, expensive conspiracy that simultaneously made all sorts of obvious, sloppy mistakes.

    6. Who’s Matt Damon and what the F is a good will hunting? And why do either matter when others are dying poor, unknown, and without BetaMax?

  18. A People’s History of the United States.

    I am not familiar with this work – was it written in the University of Leningrad or something?

  19. big name stars like Viggo Mortenson, Marisa Tomei, Morgan Freeman, Don Cheadle, Sean Penn, Rosario Dawson, Josh Brolin, Rosario Dawson, Danny Glover, and Casey Affleck

    Seriously, out of that list, I can think of two, maybe three, that deserve to be called “big name stars”. And at least one of them hasn’t done anything worth a crap in at least ten years.

    1. Some nudity on the part of Ms. Tomei and Ms. Dawson would go a long way toward getting me to watch this. With the sound turned off, of course.

    2. Has anyone on this thread actually attempted to read this book? So far we have one guy that was assigned it and never opened it (way to break the chains, bro!) and that’s it?

      Anyhow, from someone who has read it, let me just say: it’s terrible. Let me be more accurate: I read the first 50-60 pages and was bored out of my mind ? and this from someone who just finished slogging through Moby Dick (the beginning and end are great, the middle … hmm). So I skipped ahead to WWII and read up through the Bush administration. The Dissent article linked above does an excellent job of laying out the problems with this book as a work of history, but they leave out the fact that it’s mind-numbingly boring.

      There are a few interesting facts wedged in among the moralizing and the poems from Native American writers lamenting how badly they got screwed over, but that’s basically it.

      Also, in a 500 page work of history, no notes ? foot or end ? and no references aside from what he cites in the text. He makes some lame excuses in the introduction about not wanting to bog down the narrative. Weak.

      1. There’s a curious strain of leftist “history” literature that is little more than lists of various acts of evil committed by the US Government, US Corporations, and white people. The point being that somehow US Corporations and white people are uniformly evil with no hope of reform, but that the US Government should not just become bigger, but should be in charge of literally everything.

      2. Not reading the book wasn’t a rebellious act, I just didn’t feel the need. I got an A in the class and a 5/5 on the exam regardless.

        I don’t see how absorbing someone else’s narrative of history is supposed to be educational. I simply learned the institutions and theory behind our government and applied (gasp!) my own critical thought. Maybe if I read that shit I’d be quoting the NYT as gospel.

    3. “Viggo Mortenson, Marisa Tomei, Morgan Freeman, Don Cheadle, Sean Penn”

      These people all work regularly in top draw films in lead roles i.e. they are big name stars…

      1. Sean Penn is more of a celebrity these days – famous for being famous. Quick, name two films he’s made in the last five years that matter.

        Marisa Tomei? I actually like her, but what top draw film has she had a lead role in over the last five years?

        Don Cheadle? Just, possibly, maybe, but I’m betting most people couldn’t put a name to a face, or (again) name two top-draw films that he had a lead in during the last five years.

        Morgan Freeman? Legit. Same for Viggo.

        1. Penn – Milk and 21 Grams – whether you like them or not – but relevant/matter

        2. Sean Penn – Mystic River and Milk
          Marisa Tomei – Before the Devil Knows Your Dead, the Wrestler, Wild Hogs if you’re not into indie and want top grossing crappiness
          Don Cheadle – character actor, but you can say Ocean’s-whatever-numbers-he-was-in if it makes you feel better.

  20. referencing Zinn’s “mind-blowing” book

    Yes, it is mind-blowing in the sense that it has wind blowing through its ears…

  21. Matt Damon can read?

  22. The Left takes more offense to casting doubt on their messiah’s birthplace than the worst terrorist attack in history. Let that sink in a little bit.

    1. But wait a second….up above Abdul said that most 9/11 Truthers are left-wingers. So he’s saying that most left-wingers want to solve the mass murder, but you’re saying that they don’t care about it.

      Can’t both be true. Somebody’s gotta be wrong here.

      Oh, right. I get it. When you said “The Left” you were making a foggy, sociological statement with no foundation in reality (and probably no relation to it, either).

      1. They don’t want to “solve” anything. They want to blame rich white guys like Dick Cheney in order to prove their side is good and the other side is Nazi evil

        1. Speak for yourself, pal.

          9/11 was a mass murder and I believe that life is sacred and I want the murderers brought to justice.

          So that was your stab at clairvoyance, and it failed miserably.

          Maybe you should leave guesses about the motives of the masses to Miss Cleo and instead talk about data, eh? Like, for example, how military-grade explosives were found in mass quantities of the WTC debris: http://911research.wtc7.net/es…..idues.html

  23. A friend of mine once saw me reading Paul Johnson’s A History of the American People and assumed it was Zinn’s garbage. He was lucky to live.

  24. Michael, almost every claim of Zinn’s book is cited by sources and is accurate. What is atrocious about it is the real history of the U.S. and the bloodshed that imperialism has caused.

    1. Using the word “imperialism” in this thread automatically disqualifies you. Sorry, thanks for playing.

    2. Come on, Imperialism couldn’t even beat Smarty Jones!!!

    3. Zinn’s methodology would embarrass a sophmore. What’s more, the section about the Civil War relies heavily upon the now discredited work of revisionist historian Charles Beard.

  25. I’m sorry everyone. But I must summon them.


    1. Damn you Naga! Damn you to hell!

    2. I would like to hear more about your “chemtrails”.

  26. Don’t forget the robotic bugs the government uses to build a global DNA database.

  27. I look forward to Moynihan and other conservatives reviewing the new fil Invictus and making the case Mandela was a terrorist and Matt Damon is a lefty with a bad South African accent and could never play fly half…

    A few words of support for Zinn — reading a bit of it in high school made me start questioning the inherit goodness of the US government that had been impressed upon me by civics classes up until then…

    1. “Mandela was a terrorist”? Hell, these people think Luke Skywalker was a terrorist ’cause, ya know, he didn’t believe everything the beloved military said, and then he actually fought back against it.

      (Actually, if you’re really anticipating a movie that fake conservatives – not strong family-oriented folks, but the military-worshiping, Viagara-popping freak type of “conservative” – are going to fume over, wait ’til December 18.

      Hey, maybe the neo-cons should just focus on the positive: they’ve got Michael Bay and Jon Voight on their side, yay!

      (But actually, Luke Skywalker was a terrorist, and Obi-Wan Kenobi was a wacko conspiracy theorist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0fDUoudO7w )

      1. What’s with all the Viagra references?

        1. Neo-cons = impotent freaks.

          Personal knowledge, Rush Limbaugh, 20,000 Viagara commercials during Modern Warfare and PGA tournaments on TV, common sense (60 year-old men aren’t supposed to be talking like 17 year-old street punks).

          1. I meant, what’s with your obsession with erections?

  28. I wish that whole list of “mind blowingly” lame people would blow their minds out of the back of their heads so they can’t contaminate the gene poole further.

  29. Moynihan is an insufferable right-wing hack who couldn’t deviate from the ideology and grab his ass at the same time if his life depended on it.

    1. So how is Moynihan different from other reasonoids? Why single him out?

      1. Moynihan is different because hes the most reactionary and his beat is slamming everything leftists do – good or bad or nuetral – “More proof Chavez is a dictator – he sneezed on national television, need I say more?”, etc.

        1. There AREN’T any leftists who have ever done anything good.

  30. The Dissent piece makes Zinn sound like a left-wing mirror image of a right-wing libertarian. That must be why Moynihan despises him.


      Naga’s right, might as well summon the chem-trailers.

  31. My incredibly liberal AP History teacher gave us a few parts of Zimm’s people’s history.

    It was a lesson in how to read critically, since even he thought most of it was inane BS.

  32. Actually, guys, don’t be too harsh on “David”. His brain has been permanently altered by the government attempts to pharmacologize the citizenry via invention of the swine flu and subsequent “vaccine” which really is just a thinly veiled ploy to implant RFIDs in all of us.

    He just had an allergic reaction to the silicone in the chip.

    1. I thought the tin foil cranial shielding would prevent that reaction?

      1. An excellent idea!

  33. thou doth protest too much

    you apper to be full of sour grapes to me. peeew!

    why not be satisfied with what you’ve got…a corporate lock-up of history and leave little matt and howard alone?

    you sound a bit threatened.

    1. little MATT DAMON

  34. I hear Damon’s going to appear on the Jimmy Kimmel show to prove to us how terrible America is….

  35. Dang! What happened to him? Matt Damon used to be really handsome and charming, but now he’s all dour and pruney looking. His face is all tight and withdrawn. He needs to chill and just be happy with life. All that Hollywood bandwagon anger ruins a boy’s looks.

  36. Moynihan says, “I blogged Zinn’s revisionist history for kids here, which pointed out that People’s History is so awful even the socialist magazine Dissent dissed it.”

    Moynihan’s review of Zinn, like ‘Dissent’ Mag’s review is more of a ‘dis’ than a critique. Neither ‘review’ refutes any of the specific facts Zinn cites. And neither refutes Zinn’s larger claim, that his history is telling truths not told by the Establishment.

    ‘Dissent’ makes a lot of interesting observations, but their main objection is simply that Zinn doesn’t have a nuanced view; it doesn’t tell the side of the liberal and conservative elites who (allegedly) seek the greater good, but are faced w/ realpolitik dilemmas- unlike the Establishment versions of history taught in schools and universities. Right- Zinn acknowledges this in his intro; his goal was to provide a counter point to the many Establishment-fawning and apologist versions of history- which are very incomplete and skewed themselves, ‘nuanced’ or not.

    Moynihan’s dis is simply shallow.

    The 9/11 Commission attributes 9/11 to failures of imagination, resources, capabilities and management- however, to make their case, they had to omit and distort a lot of facts, and bury others in the endnotes. The big picture, based simply on mainstream sources, is far different from the myth being promoted by the Establishment media and pols:

    The Complete 9/11 Timeline

  37. ^^^^no wonder this country is going to shit..

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.