Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Login with Facebook Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID Sign In with Twitter

In this Discussion

Good God! Enough of DiEugenio
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    Good God! Enough of DiEugenio.

    This unending critique of Bugliosi's book is the ultimate beating of a dead horse.  Len gets impatient sometimes with Fetzer's discussion of domestic U.S. politics.  How on earth can he let this Bugliosi critique go on for twenty shows?  It feels like it started at the end of the First World War, and is going to finish sometime around the end of the next Ice Age.

    I'm a big fan of the show, and that's my bona fides.  But I can say that listening to DiEugenio go on for countless, interminable minutes interrupted just by squeals of his high-pitched laughter is just getting to be too much.  There's no new information being offered by his critique.  Is it supposed to be offered as some tour-de-force?  If I wrote a ten-thousand page book just trying to out-do Bugliosi and said the Warren Commission was right, would we have to listen to a whole year of DiEugenio critique? 

    If Bugliosi had some novel argument as to why the Warren Commission was supposedly right, I could see going into this.  It'd be like debating a new discovery.  But just debating already discredited notions, preaching to the choir, is a total waste of good interview time. 
  • robert1robert1
    Posts: 116
    Dear Len, members and readers of the Black Op Radio forum:
    I do like to hear Jim DiEugenio!  I heard and saw him at the 2003 Pittsburgh Conference.  I also would like to hear from Pat Valentino.  No word on him?  I too would like to hear somewhat less of Jim Fetzer and today's current politics.  He's great when he's talking new JFK information.  Jim I want you to know, that their are no hard feelings, semper fi!  More discussion along these lines are needed.  I think during these times, one needs to go back to why the forum started it the first place.  I mean, go back to the mission statement.  The answer almost always lies there.  Bob
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    Have DiEugenio on every week if you want. Just get him off the Bugliosi book critique.

    The reply above makes it look like I'm anti-DiEugenio.  That's not so.  I think he does great work and is a great guest.  Just not recently.  We don't need a point-by-point refutation of Bugliosi's book.  It's already been established, probably six shows ago, that Bugliosi uses a prosecutor's style, he ignores important facts, he uses twists in logic to deceive the reader.  I could see two shows devoted to that book to cover the general problems and back it up with specific details.  Do we really need more?

    As for Fetzer, I think he's probably the most entertaining recurring guest.  Having him on 'somewhat less' would drop him from once a month where he is right now to once a year. 
  • author said:


    Good God! ...listening to DiEugenio go on for countless, interminable minutes interrupted just by squeals of his high-pitched laughter is just getting to be too much.



    http://pages.cthome.net/tobelman/page13.htm
  • This is my first post.  I just had to stop listening to tonite's show (12/11) because I couldn't bear to hear Jim say "OK?" again at the end of each sentence.  He sounds like he's ON something.  The few sentences he doesn't end with "OK?", he ends with "alright?". thanx for reading.
  • author said:


    This is my first post. I just had to stop listening to tonite's show (12/11) because I couldn't bear to hear Jim say "OK?" again at the end of each sentence. He sounds like he's ON something. The few sentences he doesn't end with "OK?", he ends with "alright?". thanx for reading.



    image

    ...and that laugh...  ;)
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
    Whaddya know.

    I tuned in last night mid-show and the first thing I heard was DiEugenio squealing again, tickled to death at another Bugliosi blunder.  Then I tuned out: approximate time 10 seconds.
  • author said:


    Whaddya know.

    I tuned in last night mid-show and the first thing I heard was DiEugenio squealing again, tickled to death at another Bugliosi blunder.  Then I tuned out: approximate time 10 seconds.



    Fetzer's laugh is worse.  ;)

    I'm sowwy buddy, I thought I was shooting at that wascaw Gus Wusso!
    image



    The JFK Assassination: Defending the Gangster State
    by Michael Parenti (excerpt)

    To know the truth about the assassination of John Kennedy is to call into question the state security system and the entire politico-economic order it protects. This is why for over thirty years the corporate-owned press and numerous political leaders have suppressed or attacked the many revelations about the murder unearthed by independent investigators like Mark Lane, Peter Dale Scott, Carl Oglesby, Harold Weisberg, Anthony Summers, Philip Melanson, Jim Garrison, Cyril Wecht, Jim Marrs, Gaeton Fonzi, Sylvia Meagher, Michael Canfield, James DiEugenio, and many others. These investigators have been described as "assassination buffs." The term "buff" is a diminishing characterization, describing someone who pursues odd hobbies. For the same reason that we would not refer to "Holocaust buffs," so should we not refer to these serious investigators as "assassination buffs." Their efforts reveal a conspiracy to assassinate the president and an even more extensive conspiracy to hide the crime.

    While ignoring their revelations, the media have given fulsome publicity to the likes of Gerald Posner, author of Case Closed, a grotesque whitewash of the assassination. Posner's book was not a sloppy, confused work but a deliberate contrivance that used outright untruths to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald was a disgruntled lone leftist who killed Kennedy. Posner could get away with his misrepresentations because those who have written systematic exposures of his book were either ignored by the corporate owned media or roughed up by unsympathetic reviewers and editors.

    An end run around the media blackout was achieved by Oliver Stone's movie JFK, a film that directly reached millions of viewers with an accurate account of the specifics of the assassination. The movie could not simply be ignored because it was reaching a mass audience. So the press savaged it. As far as I know, JFK is the only movie in film history that was attacked, six months before it was released, in just about every major broadcast and print outlet. The Washington Post, for instance, gave George Lardner Jr. the whole front page of its Sunday "Outlook" section (5/19/91) to slam Stone for "chasing fiction." Lardner was an interesting choice to review this particular movie, being the Post reporter who covered the CIA and who never wrote a critical word about that agency.

    The media's ideological gatekeepers threw restraint to the wind when dealing with Stone's film. Conservative news columnist George Will, not known for writing movie reviews, penned a rant against JFK, calling it "a cartoon history" and "a three hour lie." Will describes Stone as "an intellectual sociopath, combining moral arrogance with historical ignorance . . . a specimen of the sixties' arrested development. . . . Intellectually, Stone is on all fours . . . part of a long fringe tradition . . . banally venal, reckless, cruel" (Washington Post, 12/27/91). By relying on invective, Will avoided the more difficult task of rebutting the points made in Stone's film.

    Shoulder to shoulder with conservartives like Will stood liberal centrists like Daniel Schorr, the NPR radio commentator who attacked Stone three times on the air, always in sarcastic and general terms, without ever coming to grips with the information proffered by the movie.

    Then there was Tom Wicker, a syndicated columnist who also had never done a movie review, but when JFK came out, he wrote one that covered a whole page, completewith photos (New York Times, 12/15/91). In it, Wicker said something revealing:
    "If the wild assertions in Oliver Stone's movie are taken at face value, Americans will have to accept the idea that most of the nation's major institutions conspired together and carried out Kennedy's murder. In an era when mistrust of government and loss of confidence in institutions--the press not the least--are widespread and virulent, such a suggestion seems a dubious public service."

    In so many words Wicker was disclosing the basic reason why such a merciless attack had been launched against Stone's movie. A full exposure of the assassination conspiracy would invite serious discredit upon the legitimacy of the dominant institutions of state and class. Playing before mass audiences, JFK did not accuse a cabal of malevolent perpetrators, but pointed to the national security state itself, inviting millions of viewers to question the kind of state system under which they lived.

    Is the Kennedy assassination conspiracy just a lot of hoopla kicked up by "conspiracy buffs"? Most of the independent investigators I have met seem to be serious politically literate people. Their struggle to arrive at the truth is not impelled by a love of conspiracies but by a concern for the political and historic importance of the case. They seek the truth no matter how dirty it might be. That process of confronting the machinations of the national security state is not a conspiracy hobby. It is an essential part of the struggle for democracy.  http://www.michaelparenti.org/JFKAssassination.html

    BlackOp Radio
    Show #359 
Original airdate: Jan 31, 2008
Guests: Michael Parenti, Greg Burnham
  • author said:


    I too would like to hear somewhat less of Jim Fetzer and today's current politics.



    image

    image
    image

    image

    image

    image
  • ngantngant
    Posts: 107
    I don't find anything objectional with the DiEugenio interviews, he's one of the best in this specialized field of political assassination research, I dare say he would be irreplaceable.

    I don't mind the extensive critiques of Bugliosi's book.

    Jim Fetzer's viewpoints on current US politics make a great filler for content which would otherwise be too monotonous by just concentrating on the JFK research.

    It's all a good antidote for the mainsteam media.
  • Edit
    Posts: 0
      I don't think there are more than 5 people in the world that know as much about the assassinations of the 60's as Jim DiEugenio. We hear so much dishonesty in a day, it's refreshing to hear someone speak with such clarity, even if it goes into more detail than some would like. It's not entertainment, it's knowledge and it's still the truth and we should welcome it. Thanks, Bob
      Len's format allows the interviewee to say what he needs to say with very little interuption. It's unique and informative. It's not the 20 second Fox opinion network, Entertainment Tonight, take it out of context, beat down we hear constantly on the television. It can get drawn out a bit but it's still informative.
      As for Pat Valentino, I wrote to him asking if he was going to be back on Blackop and he said he would be, but he's working hard on the music for a Vegas stage show at the present time. He assured me that when the heavy workload is done, he'll be back. I'm sure he has an opinion on the OJ Simpson railroading that happened a couple of blocks from him. I know I'm looking forward to hearing him again... Hell, maybe we can all go to Vegas and watch that stage show. Some Valentino is better than none.  lol

    author said:


    Dear Len, members and readers of the Black Op Radio forum:
    I do like to hear Jim DiEugenio!  I heard and saw him at the 2003 Pittsburgh Conference.  I also would like to hear from Pat Valentino.  No word on him?  I too would like to hear somewhat less of Jim Fetzer and today's current politics.  He's great when he's talking new JFK information.  Jim I want you to know, that their are no hard feelings, semper fi!  More discussion along these lines are needed.  I think during these times, one needs to go back to why the forum started it the first place.  I mean, go back to the mission statement.  The answer almost always lies there.  Bob

  • I'm in full support of having DiEugenio on at ANY time.  He is absolutely amazing.  Such a great addition to BOR.  Congrats on your great program!!
  • All Black Op Radio listeners, I feel, should be aware that the show is a straightforward presentation of information by people dedicated to research and the genuine dissemination of useful material. This will mean that people will be speaking without the dubious virtue of developed "Media personality" or with an agenda of slick soundbiting.

    We must all stop nitpicking human foibles and learn to tolerate the "amateurish" appearance of guests and presenters - There are enough matters to discuss and debate, and enough disinformation to oppose, without bickering over minor matters that could lead to the development of a culture that promotes style ahead of substance.

    I find the style tolerable because the substance is profound and the topic compelling.
  • Har.

    Returning to the forum for the first time in a couple years, I stumbled across this old post of mine.  I thought I should amend it.

    Jim DiEugenio has forgotten more than most people will ever know about the JFK assassination. I think in the beginning I was a little rattled by his presentation. But he can be forgiven that, and besides his presentation has gotten better over time. Knowing more about the minutiae of the assassination now, and appreciating a little more the depth of detail that he, for example, has at his command, I'm not bothered at all listening to him anymore. Generally, I get a lot out of it.

    So, cheers to him and to Len.
  • LordBaltoLordBalto
    Posts: 219
    Personally, I like Jim DiEugenio. But I do wish he would use a lot fewer OKs and alrights. It sometimes starts to drive me nuts. I'm sure you all know what I mean.