The main reason why I am recommending this book is because it’s out there … I would much rather [regular, everyday people] bought a book like this one, than, say, one by Bill O’Reilly—or whoever the “other side’s” designated shill happens to be this week, observes Frank Cassano.
In response to a scene in John Barbour's recent film, Jim DiEugenio once again drives home the contradictions, lack of attention to scholarly standards of historical analysis, and dishonesty in the position adopted by Noam Chomsky on both JFK's presidency and the facts and circumstances of his assassination.
This author would not walk across the street to see Posner speak about either the JFK or King case. I have a hard time thinking that Stone could master the JFK case in just a matter of 3-4 years, and am skeptical of the case made against Lyndon Johnson. In watching this confrontation it appears I was correct about these suspicions, laments Jim DiEugenio.
From about 1966, it became the strategy of the MSM not to let the Warren Commission critics speak without being interfered with, or caricatured. After Stone’s movie came out, the MSM simply would not place the critics on their programs at all. Benson counters that by simply letting the critics speak about the case without being interfered with, writes Joseph Green.
By Mark Shaw, At: NY Daily News
by Kevin Fagin, At: SFGate
A complaint, addressed to the American Historical Association by professor Paul Bleau, accusing historians of actually violating their own code of conduct in their treatment of the JFK assassination.
Part two of the study, in which professor Bleau focuses on what interested historians could easily learn from the official investigations and the opinions and statements from the actual investigators, lawyers, and staff members who were involved in six investigations that were mostly government initiated and managed, if they weren't so predisposed to accept blindly the conclusions of the Warren Commission.