The Truth May Be Out There, but Not Here
Written: Jul 31 '01 (Updated Jul 31 '01)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Can't think of any, as much as I've tried
Cons: Dishonest about its John Bircher origins; questionable logic
The Bottom Line: If you're dying for another viewpoint, try this. But you've been warned.
|
|
|
| pambo's Full Review: New American Magazine |
Here's my problem with New American, or at least one of them:
It engages in exactly the kind of pseudo-logic and suggestion we've been warned about since high school, allowing the magazine to smear by suggestion if not outright lie.
Here's another: it, like a lot of other conservative operations, is absolutely obsessed with Bill Clinton's faults. OBSESSED, as in, can't let them go, can't resist jabbing at him wherever possible and at every opportunity, no matter how far the stretch.
Disclaimer: I will say here and now that I voted for Clinton twice. The alternatives were not great; I was disgusted by his behavior with you-know-who; his fundraising leaves a bad taste. That said, he is not the devil incarnate, he is not a Communist in disguise. He's a politician, who, like many others, will do whatever he has to to get elected. (29th Candidate, where are you?)
I am reviewing the May 7 issue of this magazine, which is published biweekly. I decided to review it after reading three rather positive reviews on this site, and wondering how I'd missed this publication, and because of interest in a different kind of presentation of the news.
It didn't take long to get the hackles raised. I was hoping for a different point of view; I got loony conservative conspiracy nonsense.
Starting with an exchange of letters between a reader and one of the magazine's editors,, I could see I was in for a real ride. A previous issue had apparently included this sentence: "As a result, they made the Bill of Rights applicable only to the federal government, not to state or local governments."
A lengthy response from a reader, clearly shocked, tries to counter this misstatement. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, he points out.
The editor, not the author, writes back by not answering: he doesn't cite constitutional or other court rulings, he twice uses the famous, "it was widely understood…" This, of course, can't be answered with fact.
Let's move on.
Quickly we see the direction of the magazine:
Conservatives, rather than running the White House, are shackled. True conservatives are silenced---that Bush guy is really not a conservative, after all. While this is not a new argument, environmentalists, feminists, social activists, not to mention Democrats, also don't care for Bush, which raises the obvious question: Who or what is Bush representing if the liberals and the conservatives don't like him and don't feel served by him?
Several other short items are of interest, fitting into the interesting-if-true category:
*High-tech Trojan horse warns us that the TiVo video recorder is spying on its users through its service. True? Don't know, but it's worth exploring.
· The campus of the University was roiled recently, NA says, by an attempt to set up a war memorial for U.S. servicemen. Lefties and others objected, it says, complaining that the memorial would "have unfairly excluded many minorities, women and foreign students who were not allowed to serve in the military at one time or another." Now, if this is an accurate rendering of the facts, I'm with NA on this one though, oddly, it's presented without comment.
*The Mafia runs the abortion business, NA says, citing something called World magazine, which links abortion, pornography, gambling, bribery and extortion, and of course, the Reno Justice Department.
· Canadian soldiers are paying a high price for their country's involvement in UN peacekeeping missions. Suicide, depression, stress, injury and more all result from Canada's role with the UN, which is, of course, the favorite target of some conservatives.
Here are some other quick observations of NA's tilt:
Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic isn't really such a bad guy. Serious doubts have been raised about the extent of Serbian massacres and he should have been tried at home, not sent to the Hague tribunal.
Now, many people are edgy about the legitimacy of a tribunal and its reach into other countries. Several bad guys currently in office should watch out. But I'd say, given the length of time involved and the extensive legal maneuvering that went on, Milosevic got what he deserved. One of the people who sees media conspiracy in the coverage of the Milosevic mess is identified simply as the "wife of a career U.S. Air Force officer and someone who has lectured at the Naval War College and the Air Force Command." This is scary. Who is this person? She's someone deeply involved in far-right politics, and who, along with her husband, who is no longer in the military, is enmeshed with anti-Muslim, personal-cultural issues.
China, China, China, from the past and the modern. NA is still fighting the who-lost-China battle, but this time, the argument is fueled by contemporary Chinese behavior and the Clinton-Gore fundraising matters.
Here's who really "lost China" in the 1940s and 1950s: the U.S. government did by rejecting Mao who was eager to develop ties to the U.S. Only when we snubbed him in favor of Chiang Kai-shek did he turn to the Russians for support. That's a fact.
The Indian casino operation is going international, with the "federally installed" ruler of the Oneida "nation" working out eals with Mexico. The Oneida leader, Ray Halbritter who, according to NA was "illegally reinstated" as leader and members of his "junta" attended a UN forum. Smear time.
There are serious issues involving many Indian reservations, including poverty, politics, health, freedom of speech and their relationship with the U.S. But NA manages to skip the hard stuff and simply blast away.
This issue contained a lot of material, much of worth examining. The problem is, the facts can't be distinguished from opinion. And while that's hardly unique to this magazine, the paranoia of the conspiracy theorists makes it hard to read seriously. And where does this rightwing conspiracy stuff come from, anyway? I could understand it, a little, when the leftists expressed it because some of it turned out to be true: the FBI WAS tapping their phones, fomenting trouble, lying. But what are these guys so mad about? I guess I've missed yet another cultural phenomenon.
There are numerous ads, some showing the flag, as it were, of the advertisers' political preferences; for example, the Diamond M Ranch starts off with "This is a republic, not a democracy--lets keep it that way" before pitching its Hereford stock. Another quotes James Madison talking about freedom while promoting a company that specializes in tax deductions for dental practices.
One thing you might miss in this whole publication is the fact that it is the journal of the John Birch Society. I first realized it after spotting an ad for books on Communist China that promoted Robert Welch's "Again May God Forgive Us. That "Communist" is even used is a tipoff.
Its masthead mentions the American Opinion Publication organization, and it runs one small ad promoting the society, but other than that, its ownership is hidden, at least in this issue.
Just what we might expect from that outfit.
Recommended:
No
Primary Reason for Buying: Editorials/Social Commentary
Describe the magazine's political views: It is conservative.
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
pambo
|
 - Top 1000 |
|
Member: Pam
Location: Long Island
Reviews written: 372
Trusted by: 219 members
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2008 Shopping.com, Inc.