Review: Beyond the Big Lie: The Epidemic of Political Liars, Why Republicans Do It More, and How It Could Burn Down Our Democracy

Beyond the Big Lie: The Epidemic of Political Liars, Why Republicans Do It More, and How It Could Burn Down Our Democracy by Bill Adair
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

In the final days before Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in early 2023, the Democrats who controlled the January 6 committee released hundreds of transcripts, emails, and reports. Because Republicans planned to abolish the committee when they took over, the Democrats gave the documents to the U.S. Government Publishing Office, which posted them on a little-noticed website.

Scattered throughout the site were more than a dozen interviews with people who had invaded the Capitol or otherwise been involved in the insurrection. It took me some time to decipher the messy system for storing the transcripts—it was like the Democrats had tossed the transcripts in a closet as they were rushing to vacate an apartment—but I eventually identified the ones for the January 6 attackers. Individually and collectively, the interviews told a detailed story about the attackers’ backgrounds, education, occupations, sources of political information, and what motivated them to come to Washington to join Trump’s protest. The investigators were methodical and asked similar questions of each person.

As I compiled quotes of the attackers, two patterns emerged. One involved the social media that the insurrectionists used to connect with one another and get their political news. The investigators asked them if they relied on widely used platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, and Instagram, and also asked about smaller apps and sites that were used by conservatives and the far right such as 4Chan, Gab, Truth Social (founded by Donald Trump), and Parler. But the transcripts revealed the smaller conservative sites were not popular with the people who stormed the Capitol. When the investigators asked about social media, they heard one answer over and over.

Facebook.

The investigators found a similar pattern when they asked about news sources. The January 6 attackers had some variety in the sites they used to keep up with politics—a few occasionally looked at the mainstream media and a couple of them said they even checked out the much-derided CNN—but there was one source that nearly every one mentioned.

Fox News.

https://webharvest.gov/congress117th/...
Eric Barber

View all my reviews

Review: Nothing Like It in the World: The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad 1863-1869

Nothing Like It in the World: The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad 1863-1869 by Stephen E. Ambrose
My rating: 4 of 5 stars



View all my reviews

Review: Unbelievable: My Front-Row Seat to the Craziest Campaign in American History

Unbelievable: My Front-Row Seat to the Craziest Campaign in American History by Katy Tur
My rating: 4 of 5 stars



View all my reviews

Review: The Making of the Movie Leprechaun - "I Need Me Gold!"

The Making of the Movie Leprechaun - "I Need Me Gold!" by B Harrison Smith
My rating: 4 of 5 stars



View all my reviews

Review: Reasoning and Rationale - Unraveling Flat Earth Myths with AI Insights

Reasoning and Rationale - Unraveling Flat Earth Myths with AI Insights by Raj C Vaidyamath
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Actually, it was not generally deemed flat but rather small

During Columbus's time, it was widely believed that the Earth was round, and he mistakenly believed he had reached Asia (the Indies) when he landed in the Americas, rather than a new route to Asia.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
The Earth's Shape:
By the time of Columbus's voyages in the late 15th century, most educated Europeans already accepted the idea that the Earth was round, a concept established by ancient Greek thinkers.
Columbus's Goal:
Columbus's primary goal was to find a westward sea route to Asia (the Indies), not to explore or discover a "New World".
The Misunderstanding:
When Columbus landed in the Americas, he mistakenly believed he had reached the East Indies, a part of Asia, and he referred to the indigenous people he encountered as "Indians".
The Columbian Exchange:
His voyages initiated a period of significant exchange of plants, animals, and goods between the East and West, known as the Columbian Exchange.
Columbus's Beliefs:
He continued to believe he had reached Asia until his death, despite evidence to the contrary.

View all my reviews

Review: Founding Faith: How Our Founding Fathers Forged a Radical New Approach to Religious Liberty

Founding Faith: How Our Founding Fathers Forged a Radical New Approach to Religious Liberty by Steven Waldman
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

As North Carolina delegate Henry Abbott warned, citizens now feared that without a ban on Catholic officeholders, some nation could, through force, compel us to adopt Catholicism as the official religion. The ban on religious tests, Abbott declared, also made it possible that "pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us"-and he wondered "to whom will they swear support-the ancient gods of Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, or Pluto?" The Reverend David Caldwell argued for a new, improved test that would block "Jews and pagans of every kind."

Most vividly, a writer in the New York Daily Advertiser offered this creatively paranoid analysis that was reprinted in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts: "1st. Quakers who will make the blacks saucy, and at the same time deprive us of the means of defense-2dly. Mahometans, who ridicule the doctrine of the Trinity-3dly. Deists, abominable wretches-4thly. Negroes, the seed of Cain - 5thly. Beggars, who when set on horseback will ride to the devil-6thly. Jews etc. etc." And should the president be Jewish, "our dear posterity may be ordered to rebuild Jerusalem."

We shouldn't conclude from these extreme instances that most people thought the Constitution bad for religion. Far from it. Baptist leader John Leland praised it for following the broad principle that government stay out of religion. At the Massachusetts convention, the Reverend Isaac Backus declared that religious tests had been the "greatest engine of tyranny in the world," and praised the revolutionary new document for recognizing that "Nothing is more evident both in reason and the Holy Scriptures, than that religion is ever a matter between God and individuals; and, therefore no man or men can impose any religious test without invading the essential prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ."33 After Pennsylvania ratified, Philadelphia sponsored a celebratory parade. Watching from the side, Dr. Benjamin Rush noticed a rabbi and two Christian ministers marching arm in arm and thought it a perfect symbol of the Constitution's ban on religious tests. "There could not have been a more happy emblem contrived of that section of the new constitution, which opens all its power and offices alike, not only to every sect of Christians, but to worthy men of every religion."

The absence of God from the Constitution was pro-religion, but in a way that was not obvious to all. Much of the population had been raised to believe that to ensure a religion's health, the state must support it. The Constitution demanded a paradigm shift, away from public responsibility and toward private.

Benjamin Huntington of Connecticut declared that while he agreed with Madison's interpretation of the words, the amendment could actually "be extremely harmful to the cause of religion." He said he feared that it might force federal courts to disallow local religious establishments, such as the one in Connecticut. "The ministers of their congregations to the Eastward were maintained by contributions of those who belonged to their society; the expense of building meeting-houses was contributed in the same manner." If the Bill of Rights forbade establishments in general, wouldn't it wipe out their admirable local practice of providing tax support for their ministers? He noted that someone in Connecticut could refuse to pay taxes to support the local church and justify it on the grounds that so doing would constitute a forbidden religious establishment. (Note again that he viewed tax support for religion as being the same thing as an "establishment.") Clearly, Congress ought to let states regulate these things. Otherwise the federal lawmakers might give inadvertent legitimacy to "those who pro-fessed no religion at all."

Then, the reporter stated, Madison tried to assuage Huntington that the amendment referred only to national activity and suggested again putting back the word national: "Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel...

Compromise

Because all the major players agreed that the states would regulate religion, the First Amendment could pass even though there was no consensus about the philosophical matter of how separate church should be from state. Some lawmakers, like Madison, supported the First Amendment because they wanted separation of church and state at all levels of American life. Some, like Huntington, wanted local government support of religion and believed the First Amendment language protected the states' rights to continue the practice. Yes, some supported the First Amendment because they wanted more separation of church and state, while others supported it because they wanted less.

Danbury

Why did Jefferson ostentatiously bring a Baptist preacher before Congress? For one thing, it happens that this ardent separationist regularly at-tended religious services held in the Capitol and raised no church-state objections. More intriguingly, though, James Hutson of the Library of Congress has argued that Jefferson invited Leland because he knew something the audience didn't: He had already received an interesting letter from the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, and two days earlier had written a reply that would become one of the most important-and controversial-statements on religious liberty. It was in that letter to the Danbury Baptists that Jefferson wrote that the American people had approved the Constitution, "thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

These words, religious conservatives often point out, appear in no official documents. Not the Constitution or the Declaration or the Virginia statute. Yet when the Supreme Court first in 1879 (Reynolds v. United States) and then more famously in 1947 and 1948 (Everson v. Board of Education and McCollum v. Board of Education) cited that phrase as its guidepost for deciding cases about church and state, it became the governing metaphor that would shape public debate for decades to come. Advocates of separation of church and state cite it as a seminal founding document, while conservative Christians wax furious over the importance the letter has taken on.

Let's therefore examine the real story of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

The Danbury Baptist Association was founded in 1790 as a coalition of about twenty-six churches in the Connecticut Valley. Connecticut, it should be remembered, had established Congregationalism as its official state religion. The Baptists therefore had to pay taxes to support the salaries of Congregational ministers. Baptist ministers were not legally authorized to conduct marriages. Their ministers faced harassment and limits on where they could preach." It was as a persecuted religious minority that they wrote to President Jefferson with congratulations, praise, and a plea for help.

View all my reviews

Review: Murder in the Gulag: The Explosive Account of How Putin Poisoned Alexei Navalny

Murder in the Gulag: The Explosive Account of How Putin Poisoned Alexei Navalny by John Sweeney
My rating: 4 of 5 stars



View all my reviews