Truthout74%

Most Empires in History Fell by Age 250. The US Is at a Weighty Crossroads. 91%

By Rory Fanning0%

7/4/2026, 2:34:29 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 35 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Negativity Bias, and Politically Left Leaning Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 49.6% saturation with 594 hits. Analysis detected 5,085 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,197 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 84.6% and a BS Rank of 91% (2,054 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.60% of the article peer group.

As a veteran of the U.S. war on Afghanistan, I visit high schools on a regular basis to talk about the military. 
I try to fill in the blanks that military recruiters intentionally ignore. 
I find that when asked, most students can say very little about the reasons why the U.S. fights. 
They often wrongly assume that the U.S. fights in self-defense or to protect democracy when in reality the U.S. empire fights to control other countries’ natural resources, topple governments that refuse to submit to the will of U.S. corporations, or maintain spheres of influence in regions it has no right to be in. 
Very few teenagers know that most casualties of war are innocent civilians, or that most of those who die at the hands of the U.S. military are desperately poor. 
Far too many high schoolers across the United States assume that the U.S. military is a force for good in the world, when in reality it nearly always plays the role of the bully. 
I try to explain all this in a way that doesn’t feel preachy. 
Most teenagers will do the opposite of what they are told when they don’t feel heard or respected! 
Regardless, those considering the military after graduation deserve a complete picture of what they are signing up for. 
No one should kill or die for reasons they don’t fully comprehend. 
After my visits to these schools, I often leave lamenting the fact that, too often, young people seem to see joining the military as a default rite of passage. 
It is hard to know when one is officially an adult in U.S. society, given the atomization and alienation of our hyper-individualized and competitive world. 
It is difficult to point to any one practice, ritual, or social ceremony that acts as the finish line for childhood. 
The military becomes a perceived gateway into adulthood for many of us. 
The U.S. is 250 years old this July 4. 
Normally we associate things that are 250 years old with maturity, wisdom, and structural stability  trees, architectural landmarks, giant tortoises. 
But the U.S. seems anything but mature and stable on its quarter of a millennium birthday. 
One need only look at our current administration: its impulsive wars, corruption so baked-in it’s become governance, and an inability to admit mistakes. 
Corporate-sponsored dirt bikes and a cage fight on the front lawn of the White House to celebrate Donald Trump’s birthday  while most people in the U.S. are struggling with inflation and basic survival  is a visual that sums up the immaturity of U.S. leadership nicely. 
It’s important to remember that the U.S.’s instability goes much deeper than one administration. 
A society with such vast wealth inequality can never be stable or democratic. 
Materialism and consumption will always trump basic human values in such a culture. 
Unpopular wars will continue to be waged, and important issues such as health care, the climate, and education will be put on the back burner as long as the U.S. is governed by a handful of billionaires like Elon Musk, Miriam Edelson, and Peter Thiel, who purchase morally bankrupt politicians like candy. 
And yes, both Democrats and Republicans have been captured by these schoolyard bullies dressed as CEOs. 
Samuel Arbesman, working at the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard, calculated that the average age of an empire before it dies, throughout history, has been about 220 years old. 
So by empire standards, the U.S. is old. 
But it’s old in a way that suggests why empires don’t last: they are governed by the short-sighted, selfish, and violently aggressive  adults incapable of making the choices we’d associate with wisdom or maturity. 
In that regard, the U.S. seems no different than any other empire. 
The insatiable demands of capitalism and empire have kept most U.S. leaders in a position in which the wisdom of experience and history cannot be applied, for risk of not fulfilling those demands. 
These are leaders who are incapable of making healthy long-term decisions that will benefit and support humanity both in the U.S. and the rest of the world. 
Which takes me back to the young people I speak to in high schools who see the military as a positive pathway into adulthood. 
More of us need to communicate to them that maturity involves much more than physical growth or strength. 
Maturity requires an ability to follow your heart and sense of humanity, no matter what family, friends, or society as a whole encourages. 
Joining the military  particularly a military that is complicit in a genocide or imperial adventures that destroy innocent lives  traps young people in a situation where they often literally cannot develop and express their maturity. 
I’ve spoken to too many veterans who get stuck in that moment, that day, when they carried out a horrific order. 
Or watched their friends die in battle. 
Or stormed into a house they knew they had no right being in and watched children weep from fright or even take their last breath. 
These U.S. soldiers, who are effectively seen as terrorists by many people across the world, become glued to a nightmarish feedback loop they can’t move on from. 
They feel like they will never be able to follow their hearts and sense of humanity again, because they can’t trust who they became that one day when they were 18 or 19 years old. 
None of this is communicated by the military recruiters. 
The U.S. is at a crossroads on its 250th birthday. 
Young people, with noble and honorable intentions, are looking for models to take them into adulthood and help them live their lives with decency and morality. 
And they are seeing very little in the way of positive examples. 
If we hope to defy the odds and survive as a species on this burning planet, the impulsive people we’ve elevated into leadership must be replaced by those who know and appreciate the value of human life in all of its diversity. 
In recent years we’ve seen millions of people in the U.S. finally come to denounce the genocide being perpetrated against Palestinians by the Israeli military in the name of Zionism. 
People in the U.S. are rapidly beginning to relearn the vocabulary that identifies exploitation and oppression in their lives  a language that McCarthyism did its best to eradicate. 
More and more are seeing how racism, anti-immigrant hate, and sexism are used to divide and keep people distracted from oligarchs who are stealing from them. 
We are rejecting wars ginned up by billionaires and vicious politicians to extend the riches of empire and wipe out any potential challengers. 
Increasingly, people are once again identifying the failings of capitalism and the predatory nature of empire. 
There is strong evidence that U.S. society is beginning to grow up in spite of the leadership that is trying to keep it infantilized. 
A healthier rite of passage for young people is reemerging, and it involves organizing and leading a movement and culture change against the evils of empire. 
And that is something to celebrate! 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 27.2%Rory Fanning: 20.0%Truthout: 5.8%Confirmation Bias27.2%This article: 2.1%Rory Fanning: 1.3%Truthout: 0.8%Anchoring Bias2.1%This article: 10.4%Rory Fanning: 9.6%Truthout: 3.4%Availability Heuristic10.4%This article: 7.0%Rory Fanning: 3.5%Truthout: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic7.0%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.0%Truthout: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Rory Fanning: 2.0%Truthout: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias3.6%This article: 6.9%Rory Fanning: 5.5%Truthout: 10.0%Framing Effect6.9%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.0%Truthout: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.0%Truthout: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.3%Rory Fanning: 3.2%Truthout: 1.0%Optimism Bias8.3%This article: 5.7%Rory Fanning: 3.9%Truthout: 2.3%Pessimism Bias5.7%This article: 42.8%Rory Fanning: 23.0%Truthout: 12.2%Negativity Bias42.8%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.0%Truthout: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Rory Fanning: 2.7%Truthout: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error1.2%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Rory Fanning: 4.3%Truthout: 1.9%In-Group Bias8.3%This article: 6.7%Rory Fanning: 4.2%Truthout: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.5%Truthout: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.9%Rory Fanning: 2.2%Truthout: 1.2%Recency Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.2%Truthout: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 1.1%Rory Fanning: 0.3%Truthout: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias1.1%This article: 1.3%Rory Fanning: 3.6%Truthout: 1.6%Ad Hominem1.3%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 2.9%Truthout: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.4%Rory Fanning: 2.4%Truthout: 3.7%Appeal to Authority4.4%This article: 15.3%Rory Fanning: 8.6%Truthout: 1.9%False Dilemma15.3%This article: 3.1%Rory Fanning: 1.9%Truthout: 1.5%Slippery Slope3.1%This article: 4.8%Rory Fanning: 1.2%Truthout: 0.3%Circular Reasoning4.8%This article: 46.1%Rory Fanning: 36.5%Truthout: 7.7%Hasty Generalization46.1%This article: 1.2%Rory Fanning: 0.3%Truthout: 0.3%Red Herring1.2%This article: 7.7%Rory Fanning: 2.7%Truthout: 0.6%Bandwagon7.7%This article: 49.6%Rory Fanning: 18.3%Truthout: 8.8%Appeal to Emotion49.6%This article: 1.7%Rory Fanning: 1.5%Truthout: 1.7%Begging the Question1.7%This article: 12.4%Rory Fanning: 4.9%Truthout: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.4%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.0%Truthout: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.7%Rory Fanning: 0.2%Truthout: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.7%This article: 6.3%Rory Fanning: 1.6%Truthout: 0.4%Composition/Division6.3%This article: 20.6%Rory Fanning: 12.4%Truthout: 2.7%Anecdotal20.6%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.5%Truthout: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.8%Rory Fanning: 1.2%Truthout: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.8%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.1%Rory Fanning: 1.5%Truthout: 1.5%Unattributed Quote6.1%This article: 5.8%Rory Fanning: 1.4%Truthout: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection5.8%This article: 33.9%Rory Fanning: 28.8%Truthout: 9.5%Biased Writer Voice33.9%This article: 20.8%Rory Fanning: 12.5%Truthout: 2.9%Indoctrination20.8%This article: 34.3%Rory Fanning: 34.7%Truthout: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias34.3%This article: 3.9%Rory Fanning: 1.0%Truthout: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Rory Fanning: 0.0%Truthout: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1197 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker2.6%attributed speech1,166writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageSamuel Arbesman • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Samuel Arbesman

100%flagged-word coverage
31 attributed words100% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Politically Left Leaning B-35.2 ptsWriter: 35.2%Samuel Arbesman: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.8 ptsWriter: 34.8%Samuel Arbesman: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-21.4 ptsWriter: 21.4%Samuel Arbesman: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Samuel Arbesman: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%Samuel Arbesman: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Samuel Arbesman: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.