May 26, 2007
By fax to 212-556-3622
By email to letters@nytimes.com
Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
To the editor:
RE: Bryan Burrough’s Review of Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History
Thank you for spelling my name correctly. Readers interested in the facts will be able to read my Blood, Money & Power, How LBJ Killed JFK and evaluate for themselves.
I have now read parts of Bugliosi’s doorstop and was amused by his many misstatements of material fact. His overwrought conclusions are simply without foundation and his practices violate simple rules of professional ethics.
My sequel on uncovering the cover-up will detail the ongoing search for the facts. Tom Wicker noted that we do not know what happened. Bugliosi also does not know and his efforts only disclose his narcissism, bias and malice. My sequel will disclose how he simply protests too much, and the order of proof will present the facts supporting my disclosures.
We will be ready for the jury in contrast to Bugliosi’s low-minded diatribes even a first-year student would avoid. Bugliosi, who is not even a Johnny Cochran, has made his case. My turn to close.
As I continue my disclosures, may you enjoy the read as I enjoy the write, and the right.
Very truly yours,
Barr McClellan
SHAME ON YOU, NEW YORK TIMES!
This Sunday's (5/20/07) New York
Times Book Review will feature Bryan Burrough's
analysis of a volume we've commented on a bit here this week -- Vince
Bugliosi's take on the JFK case, Reclaiming History Click here for the review
What a pathetic excuse for a book
review it is, especially one appearing in a major bastion of national culture!
I say this not, repeat, not, because
of Burrough's pronounced bias about the
case or his strangely angry venom spit
out at the JFK "conspiracy theorists," but simply because of its
defects as an informative book review:
Not a single example of the dozens
upon dozens of arguments Bugliosi musters
to prove the Lone Nutter case; not a
single example or fact or piece of evidence to justify the flat-out
mugging of the Warren Commission critics, as in this cheap shot:
"What Bugliosi has done is a
public service. These people should be ridiculed, even shunned. It's time we
marginalized Kennedy conspiracy theorists the way we've marginalized smokers.
Next time one of your co-workers starts in about Oswald and the CIA, make him stand in the rain with the other
outcasts."
Wow! Straight out of the
O'Reilly-Coulter-Rivera smashmouth school of public
"debate."
Apparently in Burrough's universe the way to treat
people who go against the accepted grain is with undisguised contempt. Is your
spouse or parent or child still smoking? Drinking too much? Not getting to
church enough? Win him over with ridicule! Heap on the scorn! Or shun her
altogether! Let them know they are unacceptable outcasts from the family
circle. That'll get 'em to see the light!
Yeah, right!
Most revealing in that statement is
its praise for Bug for performing a public service. Bears out what I said in
the "Bug in My Bonnet" posts: the purpose of the book is
political/ideological, not historical. Perhaps even theological: Burrough quotes with approval Bug's characterization of
Barr McClellan's book fingering JFK as the prime mover behind the JFK hit as
"blasphemous. . ." How very odd, since blasphemy is defined as an
offense against God. "God" here is not necessarily LBJ, but the
all-powerful, to-be-worshipped-and-trusted state.
But here's the real stunner about Burrough's review, the statement that reveals most about
the bankrupt state of historical, political and cultural discourse in this
thoroughly dumbed-down country of ours:
"This book should be applauded;
I'm not so sure, however, that it should be read."
How could a presumably respectable
and reputable vehicle like The New York Times Book Review publish such such an utterly stupid remark? It boggles the
mind. It makes one gag on the morning's
coffee. It renders one speechless, the mouth having become a vomitorium. Let Private Gomer
Pyle say it all:
"Shame! Shame! Shame!"
"Be no longer consumers of
ideas, of history, of culture, of books," is what
Burrough and The Times are really telling
us. "Become mere consumers of other people's ideas -- of our ideas.
Applaud what we applaud. Ridulcule, mock and
marginalize what we ridicule, mock and marginalize. Don't think and explore for
yourself. We've already done it for you." (Burrough
tells us that, yes, he did read all the book's 1612
pages; he was paid to. Message
here: Leave the judgments to the paid
experts, to the mandarins.)
1612 pages are just too much for our
itty-bitty widdle bwains to
cope with, after all. And all that reading would distract us from important
public issues like Paris Hilton's prison wardrobe and
Jim F.