Thinking For Ourselves
When I decided to inquire as to whether we had the whole story behind the rise of the Bush Dynasty and its most controversial member, I began coming upon previously-hidden facts that I found deeply disturbing. I would show my discoveries to friends high in the journalistic firmament. They would raise their eyebrows, fret a while, and then they would speak. First, they would tell me that I had terribly important information to impart. Then they would beseech me to keep it to myself.
Certain things, certain topics, I was told, are considered verboten by the establishment, including its liberal fringe. Publishing these things was simply going to be hazardous to my career. I would be attacked, or, worse, my five years of work would be studiously ignored.
Certain things, certain topics, I was told, are considered verboten by the establishment, including its liberal fringe. Publishing these things was simply going to be hazardous to my career. I would be attacked, or, worse, my five years of work would be studiously ignored.
Call me a fool, but I went ahead and completed Family of Secrets. Now, I see what they mean. In major publications, reviewers either savaged the book or employed sarcasm to subtly cast aspersions, taking refuge in platitudes about singular American events like the JFK assassination and Watergate--views so hackneyed that the majority of Americans don't even believe them anymore. Prime venues for exposure--including the major television and radio programs--simply bypassed the book altogether. This matters, of course, greatly, because most potential readers wait to see what "the experts" say before deciding whether to spend any money or time on a book.
Yet the gatekeepers are exactly the wrong people to trust. Most are not curious, and they are not bold. They are establishment creatures with little motivation to highlight controversial, paradigm-shifting work, particularly from a non-celebrity whose findings are unnerving.
There's the inherent paradox. Good citizens, good thinkers, and thoughtful readers share a few qualities. They are inquisitive, open to new ideas, skeptical about opinions emanating from institutions, and willing to rethink their own preconceptions. Yet again and again I see criticisms of Family of Secrets on the Internet by those who declare that they have not--and in some cases will not-- read it. That's a no-nothing stance--exactly the kind of behavior the same people ascribe to George W. Bush.
If you are a serious person, you owe it to yourself to consider serious material. Read the book. And keep your mind open. Then weigh in.
I bought your book Tuesday and finished it last night. I wish that the contributors to the discussion had read the book. Perhaps TPM might want to make that a requirement, at the very least it should be a professional courtesy extended from one author to another - if you're going to offer comments and criticism do the author the simple favour of reading the book before you review it.
No one in the media establishment is going to seriously review and discuss your book. They won't do it because it forces them to act responsibly - research your claims, investigate your resources and inform themselves of facts. That is actual work and members of the media establishment, especially the stars, don't do work. They don't even write their own books, much less read anyone else's.
Secondly, the political and media establishment don't want the corruption fixed, that is how they make their living, why change it? They are afraid of change; a good example of this is the newspaper industry - they are more afraid of change than they are of dying as an industry. If they give serious consideration to your book, people might start asking questions, they might wonder why other reporters, insiders of the system, either didn't know about this or failed to report it, and if they're the insiders they say they are, then how could they not have known it?
In spite of all this, you've done the decent thing here. Yes, they're going to marginalize you, ignore you, portray you as a flake, refuse to acknowledge your work and in all other ways do to you what they always do to decent people - get rid of them as quickly as possible. I fervently hope that people read your book and take heed of your warning, but as Kevin Phillips pointed out, it may well be too late. The citizens of this republic accept the corruption and the people who are in the position to do something about it like that way.
May 29, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ever since Florida was stolen before the 2000 (s)election... and completely misreported, I have fully realized just how deliberately blind the mainstream press is what actually goes on in America. The deliberate purging of the voter registration. The dumping and non-registering of forms from voter registration drives at historically black colleges. The state police roadblocks in rural backroad black areas. All of this was known about, and sort of reported in the days that followed the election. But except for Herbert in the NY Times, no mainstream press report faced up to the fact the Bush dynasty had stolen an election. (probably a second one, given the shenanigans behind the Iranian hostage release).
May 29, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
... and a third one in Ohio in 2004.
May 29, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"They won't do it because it forces them to act responsibly - research your claims, investigate your resources and inform themselves of facts. "
Isn't it the job of the author to do that leg work and to put the research and footnotes etc. together in an inviting manner which is also persuasive if not compelling?
I think Baker is correct about established review sources, but is TPM all that "establishment" now?
May 29, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
An author can have the most charming manner of displaying footnotes, but I still check them out. That's our responsibility as readers.
I don't know where this idea came, but I've noticed this trend in the last twenty years - if an author has footnotes, then his work is presumed to be correct. Footnotes can be wrong, resources untrustworthy, people misquoted and mistakes made which is why the reader and especially the reviewer should check them.
When you read stories at sites like TPM, the Wasthington Post or the New York Times don't you check out their facts and sources? I do.
May 29, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ann Coulter, among others, has a history of footnoting information that she has in fact completely misrepresented, whether unintentionally or otherwise.
May 29, 2009 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're both [intentionally?] missing the point.
The book might be poorly done, footnoted or not.
May 29, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't miss the point, you did. If you're going to do a serious review of Mr. Baker's book, then it is only proper to read the book, check his resources and footnotes and inform yourself of the facts. That is how you review non fiction books.
In the reviews I have read about this book, I can tell whether the reviewer read the book or not. The review in the Los Angeles Times was especially (I'm going to try and be tactful here) stupid coming from Rutten who claims to have learned his ethics at the altar of Otis Chandler. Which of course, I believe, and might explain why he chose to review a book that mentions the Chandler family more than a few times. Rutten tells us the book is an exercise in paranoia, but he doesn't tell us how he knows that, he just informs Angelenos that they shouldn't read the book - he skimmed through it and didn't like it. It's this kind of arrogance that I'm talking about.
May 29, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I cannot be missing the point, since it was my comment that you replied to.
I'm not justifying bad review practices. But bad review practices don't mean the book was well written either.
Why is the simple truth so annoying to you?
May 29, 2009 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please. Grow up will you!
May 29, 2009 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not only missing my point, you're (deliberately?) being obtuse.
Now, the obvious for the oblivious: yes, a bad reviewer can review a bad book. Yes, a good reviewer can review a good book. Yes, a bad reviewer can review a good book. Yes, a good rviewer can review a bad book and all the permutations that occur to you. The point of my remark was that there will be no serious reviews of Mr. Baker's book by the establishment media, because the establish media does not do serious reviews. Whether it is because they don't understand the craft and do not know how to do it, or whether it is because they're too lazy to do it or learn how to do it, I can't tell you, although I have my suspicions.
Your question in your first response, as to the author's responsibility to do the legwork etc, was a misapprehension on your part, followed by an attempt by you to divert the discussion by claiming that you were misunderstood. If you were asking if the book was poorly done, then why didn't you ask if the book was poorly done? I responded to the questions you asked, why can't you accept a simple truth?
May 29, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, no, but your ability to continue to distort a simple point to suit your mood is quite evident enough already.
When you get your copy and write your cogent review, I'm sure you'll post a blog on it. Until then the point I made stands despite your attempts at obfuscation.
And yes, it's easy for a fool to try to ridicule the truth.
May 30, 2009 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
She read it eds.
You didn't. AND she checked the footnotes.
If you are talking about Ann Coulters books, you should clarify.
May 30, 2009 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm talking about the topic as I addressed it in the first comment in this subthread.
June 1, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really have to hand it you - it takes some fortitude of character to want people to think you're dumb rather than admit you made a mistake. Normal people generally have more pride and dignity about them, admit that they misread a comment or whatever, apologize and then vow to do better in the future. Dumb people though, think that if they keep rearranging the walls of their comments a whole new structure will appear and they can then insist that someone has misunderstood their construction - the load beam is over here now. "Gosh, how'd you miss it?"
May 30, 2009 3:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to Mr. EDS neighborhood.
You missed it when he smugly criticized the reaction of the public health community to the H1N1 flu.
May 30, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
No question that 'ad hominem' is in your repertoire, but why do you need to use it?
If you want to riff on a simple point, try not to contradict yourself so obviously.
May 31, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great retort!
May 29, 2009 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. It's like drilling through concrete with a butter knife, isn't it?
May 29, 2009 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said Mr. Baker.
It is dumb to have a discussion about a book by people who have not read it.
I will read it soon. I was thinking that us readers of TPM could discuss it after reading it. If the headliners won't do the work, let us readers give it a shot.
May 29, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on that. I'm gonna get the book too.
May 29, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me three!
May 29, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me four. I read 50 pages in the book store out of financial necessity, but I'm in a better position now so I'll go back and buy it.
Somebody set a date for the real discussion!
May 29, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about next Saturday evening, June 6?
I can use my blog as the meeting place.
May 30, 2009 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, God ! I'll get the damn book. And I haven't even finished Ghost Wars.
May 30, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to worry flavius, I have started the book and see that it has many of the same Ghosts.
May 30, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh.
You rawk!
May 29, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't afford your book, love secrets, and Bush family secrets...what did you say??
May 30, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please see my other posts on tpmcafe for more on the contents of Family of Secrets. You can also visit www.familyofsecrets.com and hear me talk about the book on various interview programs. For example, one is an appearance on C-SPAN Book TV, where I read excerpts and then take questions.
May 30, 2009 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Check your library, mine has two copies. If they don't have it complain.
May 30, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have started the book and it is a substantial work. If anybody thinks it would be better to give more time before discussion, please speak up.
In the meantime, I will personally shoot for the June 6 date I proposed to Billwalker.
May 30, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
My DT Brooklyn B&N doesn't have it. Maybe they also think it's too late to do anything about our democracy.
I'll keep trying as time allows.
May 30, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had to go to Manhattan get my copy. My local B&N didn't have it either. Or the other local stores.
I will play the "time allowed by ear".
May 30, 2009 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I just ordered it from Amazon today with 2-day shipping, and given it's volume, I think I'm gonna need more time to read it.
May 30, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr Baker,
There is a of lot material that is being established in your footnotes as coming from Trento's Prelude to Terror.
I would like to know how you treated those elements as a matter of research. Did you independently vet his sources? Or is that possible?
I ask because your presentation insinuates very serious involvement with very real crimes. But a lot of these moments you bring up are disturbing even if they are not as connected as you suggest. Whatever you can say about your methods would be helpful to this reader.
Anyway, I better read some more before the night ends. I am hooked.
May 30, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bought the book and am about 1/3 finished. In fact, the book goes over familiar territory and touches on friends and family here in Texas.
It is accurate as to details I can corroborate. But, it has forest I never saw. Thanks for a higher and deeper vision.
This is not an Agatha Christi novel that solves the Kennedy Assasination puzzle. But, that may not be even close to the most important story to be told.
The drama, I see here is how close the the era of Great, World, and Cold Wars deformed republican democracy and leaves us astonishingly vulnerable to internal parasitism and external improvidence.
Oil in 1917 was a source of power but, since 1973, has been a source of weakness. I see the Bush Dynasty as an end-game.
They have one formidable princling yet to run. But, without even one political party, much less the two collaborating parties that gave us '41 and '43, he could not I think sustain the vision of the US as creditor-in-possession of the British Empire.
May 31, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The link to the confessions of Howard Hunt mentioned on page 83 is here.
May 31, 2009 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brave work, Mr. Baker.
Welcome to the ranks of the "conspiracy theorists".
Once one understands that the "mainstream" media are Intelligence assets tasked with protecting a murderously corrupt Establishment, much becomes clear.
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/head-shot/
Gary Webb would be proud.
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/coke-or-pepsi/
June 1, 2009 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an exercise in "thinking for ourselves" about controlled corporate media, consider the following:
http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/black-box/
June 1, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to all of you for your comments. I do read them with considerable interest. btw, as some of you note, the mainstream media is not exactly rushing to publicize the existence of this book--but the public is learning about it from folks like you via the Internet. So any and all efforts you are able to make in spreading the word on blogs and other forums really matter. Again, my sincere appreciation.
June 1, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Mr. Baker. The desire to be misled continues, deeply embedded since the days of Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, and of course various Commission reports. Your work seems to me to be the most "mainstream" of the various literature I've encountered, perhaps because I came of age in the 70's and so missed the initial rebuttals of the Warren Commission.
The tag "conspiracy theorist" seems to carry powerful approbrium, tho perhaps less so than previously. However, we learned very young not to talk sh*t 'bout Santa. Shame really works.
Thanks for taking on not only the subject of the misuse of state power to thwart democracy and promote the oil-argarchy, and also for addressing the meta conversation about social shunning of skeptics.
June 4, 2009 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink