Bill O’Reilly ‘Killing Lincoln’ Errors: Book Contains Plethora Of Factual Inaccuracies

Bill Oreilly Killing Lincoln

The Huffington Post    First Posted: 11/13/11 02:28 PM ET Updated: 11/15/11 07:57 PM ET

Bill O’Reilly is no stranger to controversy. This time, though, his new book is the focus of intense criticism.

As Salon’s Justin Elliott first reported, “Killing Lincoln”, which he co-authored with Martin Dugard, is riddled with factual inaccuracies. The National Park Service outed the mistakes in a recent review and recommended that Ford’s Theater bookstores not sell the book. One of the bookstores banned, while the other continues to sell it.

In one instance, the book claims Ford’s Theatre was burned down in 1863 when it was actually destroyed in the end of 1862. The book contains multiple references to Lincoln in the Oval Office, which wasn’t built until decades after his death. It also includes the line “He furls his brow”; furl is a nautical term, the correct word is furrows.

Despite being second on the New York Times’ bestseller list, “Killing Lincoln” has taken heat from a slew of critics. Christian Science Monitor’s Jackie Hogan chastises the book for covering up negative aspects of Lincoln’s presidency in favor of a good story. As she puts it, “style and image often take precedence over evidence and substance.” She also calls the book “sensationalized, suggestive, and overly simplistic.”

Noted historian Eric Foner told the Washington Post that, “I would not be surprised if there were historical errors as [O’Reilly] is better known as a TV polemicist than as a scholar.”

In September, O’Reilly told Fox and Friends that he didn’t want to write just another “boring history book.” Mission accomplished, then.

[fuente: http://www.huffingtonpost.com]

Bill O’Reilly’s ‘Killing Lincoln’ not for sale at Ford’s Theatre museum bookstore

By , Published: November 12

Of all the places you’d expect to find Bill O’Reilly’s “Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever,” Ford’s Theatre, the site of the dreadful act, should rank at the top. But you’d do better to search for the history bestseller on ­Amazon.com, because you won’t find it at the theater’s museum bookstore.For a history of the assassination — an “unsanitized and uncompromising . . . no spin American story,” as O’Reilly and co­author Martin Dugard put it, “Killing Lincoln” suffers from factual errors and a lack of documentation, according to a study conducted by Rae Emerson, the deputy superintendent of Ford’s Theatre National Historic Site, which is a unit of the National Park Service. Emerson’s review recommended that the book not be sold at Ford Theatre’s NPS store.

(Henry Holt & Co.) – \”Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever\” by Bill O’Reilly & Martin Dugard.

While the National Park Service does not carry “Killing Lincoln” in the theater’s basement museum bookstore, Ford’s Theatre Society, which operates Ford’s Theatre in partnership with the park service, sells the book in its gift shop located in the ground-floor lobby of the theater. “We decided several weeks ago to carry Bill O’Reilly’s book ‘Killing Lincoln’ in the Ford’s Theatre Society gift shop,” said Paul R. Tetreault, director of Ford’s Theatre Society. “While we understand the National Park Service’s concerns about the book, we decided to let our visitors judge the book themselves.”Henry Holt, the publisher of “Killing Lincoln,” said it was not able to provide comment. O’Reilly did not respond to a request for comment.

Other Lincoln experts also say they have found inaccuracies in the book. In a review published in the November issue of “North & South — The Official Magazine of the Civil War Society,” historian Edward Steers Jr. cites several instances where the book strays from documented history. He then asks: “If the authors made mistakes in names, places, and events, what else did they get wrong? How can the reader rely on anything that appears in ‘Killing Lincoln’?”

By taking on Lincoln, O’Reilly and Dugard have set themselves up for avid scrutiny. Few presidents, indeed few subjects, are as voluminously researched and fought over as Lincoln. Steers notes that more than 16,000 books and articles have been written about Lincoln, with more than 125 volumes on the assassination. He adds that only eight of the assassination books were written by professional historians.

Eric Foner, a history professor at Columbia University who has written about the Civil War, Lincoln and the South for 40 years, said that he had not read “Killing Lincoln,” but added in an e-mail, “Many people outside the academy have written about Lincoln and the assassination, but all sorts of unproven theories about it abound and one would hope that any writer would make use of all the relevant sources (and avoid historical errors).”

“Killing Lincoln” has no footnotes. An afterword on sources lists “books, websites, and other archived information.” But to Steers, the list leaves out important primary documents.

Borges en Nueva York

Jorge Luis Borges, Beatriz Guido y Marta lynch

Jorge Luis Borges, Beatriz Guido y Marta lynch

Borges en el corazón

“Ahora, todo el mundo está en mi interior”, decía el escritor cuando la ceguera le iba permitiendo aislarse paulatinamente de las interferencias del mundo. A los 25 años de su muerte, el gran cronista estadounidense Gay Talese rememora la entrevista en la que lo conoció en Nueva York

Lo que sigue es la reproducción del relato que escribí de mi única entrevista con Borges, que tenía entonces 62 años (y su madre, de 85), que llevamos a cabo en un hotel de Nueva York (creo que era el Algonquin, en la Calle 44 Oeste) y se publicó en The New York Times el 31 de enero de 1962. En aquella época, yo tenía 30 años y era redactor delTimes; aquel día mi redactor jefe me ordenó que fuera a entrevistar a Borges, cuya obra conocía por supuesto; me sentí ligeramente nervioso ante la perspectiva de conocer a la gran figura literaria en persona.

Lo primero que me impresionó fue su aparente estado de alerta, sentado muy recto en una silla tapizada de respaldo alto

Junto a él se sentaba su madre, que, a pesar de tener 85 años, no aparentaba más de 60 y que era de una belleza asombrosa

Nos encontramos en el vestíbulo del hotel, a la hora acordada, y, aunque yo sabía que era ciego, lo primero que me impresionó fue su aparente estado de alerta, la impresión que daba de enterarse de todo, sentado muy recto en una silla tapizada de respaldo alto, desde donde parecía observar las idas y venidas de docenas de huéspedes que recorrían el ruidoso vestíbulo. Junto a él se sentaba su madre, que, a pesar de tener 85 años, no aparentaba más de 60 y que, podría añadir, era de una belleza asombrosa para tener cualquier edad. Pensé que no podía haber sido más bella ni cuando tenía 25 años; porque, a los 85, irradiaba una vitalidad y una energía intemporales, y la suave piel de su rostro era la de una mujer bien conservada que (no me cabía la menor duda) debía de dedicarse a diario a mantener su atractivo; seguro que pasaba horas delante de un espejo con el fin de satisfacer su deseo de representar la perfección para todas las personas con las que se encontrase. Durante la entrevista que hice a su hijo, no pude evitar mirarla mientras nos escuchaba y, a veces, introducía alguna palabra para subrayar lo que estaba diciendo él.

La entrevista no duró más de media hora; he aquí, reproducido, el artículo que escribí en aquella memorable ocasión, en 1962, cuando conocí a Borges y a su inolvidable madre.

Como su padre y su abuelo, su bisabuelo y su tatarabuelo, Jorge Luis Borges se ha quedado poco a poco ciego. Pero hasta la ceguera, dice, tiene ventajas.

“Antes, el mundo exterior interfería demasiado”, me decía este intelectual argentino de 62 años ayer en Nueva York. “Ahora, todo el mundo está en mi interior. Y veo mejor, porque puedo ver todas las cosas que sueño. Fue una ceguera gradual, nada trágica”, continuó. “Si uno se queda ciego de pronto, el mundo se le hace añicos. Pero si primero pasa por un crepúsculo, el tiempo fluye de manera diferente. No es preciso hacer nada. Uno puede quedarse sentado. Las personas ciegas tienen mucha dulzura. Las sordas, en cambio, no. Las personas sordas son muy impacientes. A veces, la gente se ríe de los sordos. Nadie se ríe de un ciego”.

“El jueves”, dijo el doctor Borges, “doy una conferencia en… ¿En? ¿Cómo se llama ese sitio?”.

“Yale”, dijo su madre.

“Eso es, Yale”, siguió él. “Voy a hablar sobre William Henry Hudson, un escritor inglés nacido en Argentina. Y el 6 de febrero, estaré en Harvard. El 12 de febrero, en la Universidad de Columbia. Y el 14 de febrero, en Princeton. Hablaré de clásicos argentinos como el magnífico poema Martín Fierro, que trata de un gaucho y fue escrito en 1872 por Hernández. El gaucho es un personaje realista pero poco romántico; también presentaré al otro gran poeta argentino, Lugones, que tradujo a Homero al español”.

Durante toda su gira de conferencias, el doctor Borges contará con la ayuda de una memoria extraordinaria, casi absoluta -otra consecuencia de la ceguera-, y de su madre, que, a sus 85 años, parece tan dinámica y se conserva tan bien como una de esas atractivas mujeres de 60 años dadas al narcisismo, algo que no parece ser el caso de la señora Borges. La madre de Borges, como su hijo, pasó la mayor parte de sus años prerrevolucionarios en Buenos Aires luchando contra Juan Perón, y en una ocasión pasó una semana en la cárcel por participar en una manifestación contra él.

“Los escritores sufrieron mucho con el dictador”, asegura el doctor Borges, aunque igual de mala era la situación en Argentina hace 30 años, “cuando nos leíamos las obras y nos lavábamos la ropa unos a otros”. Pero hoy los escritores han progresado, y en especial él. Es autor de 30 libros de ensayo, poesía y relato, y su primera recopilación traducida al inglés saldrá publicada esta primavera en New Directions, bajo el título Labyrinth.

“No creo que Perón supiera que había literatura en su país”, opina el doctor Borges. “Nos puso todos los obstáculos posibles, pero lo que más le importaba, en realidad, era agitar a todo el mundo en contra de Estados Unidos y mandar a la gente a la cárcel”.

Aunque el doctor Borges no puede adivinar las consecuencias a largo plazo de la última reunión de la Organización de Estados Americanos en Punta del Este, Uruguay, dice que, “por desgracia”, Fidel Castro parece afianzado, y “los comunistas son muy listos”.

“Los estadounidenses son siempre unos incomprendidos”, añade. “Si dan dinero, la gente piensa que es un soborno. Si no lo dan…”, reflexiona, “quizá sea mejor”.

La madre del doctor Borges miró su reloj y le recordó que tenían una cita en otro lugar unos minutos después. Me puse de pie, les di la mano a los dos y les agradecí que me hubieran dedicado su tiempo. Volví corriendo al edificio de The New York Times, que estaba a solo dos manzanas, con la esperanza de escribir algo que hiciera justicia al rato que había pasado con aquel extraordinario hombre de letras y su madre. También pensé en lo que había dicho sobre las personas ciegas, sobre todo esta frase inolvidable: “Ahora, todo el mundo está en mi interior… Y veo mejor, porque puedo ver todas las cosas que sueño”.

Traducción de María Luisa Rodríguez Tapia. Gay Talese (Ocean City, Nueva Jersey, 1932) ha publicado recientemente en España Honrarás a tu padre (traducción de Patricia Torres Londoño. Alfaguara. Madrid, 2011. 640 páginas. 21.50 euros) y el año pasado Retratos y encuentros (Alfaguara) y La mujer de tu prójimo (Debate).

[Fuente: diario El Pais, de Madrid]

The Second Presidential Debate (2008)

McCain reacts to Obama's comment about Fox News

Following is a transcript of the second presidential debate between Senators John McCain and Barack Obama in Nashville, as recorded by CQ Transcriptions:

[...]

Next question for Senator Obama, it comes from the F section and is from Katie Hamm (ph). Katie?

QUESTION: Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?

OBAMA: Katie, it’s a terrific question and we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn’t finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al Qaeda.

So what happened was we got distracted, we diverted resources, and ultimately bin Laden escaped, set up base camps in the mountains of Pakistan in the northwest provinces there.

They are now raiding our troops in Afghanistan, destabilizing the situation. They’re stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that’s why I think it’s so important for us to reverse course, because that’s the central front on terrorism.

They are plotting to kill Americans right now. As Secretary Gates, the defense secretary, said, the war against terrorism began in that region and that’s where it will end. So part of the reason I think it’s so important for us to end the war in Iraq is to be able to get more troops into Afghanistan, put more pressure on the Afghan government to do what it needs to do, eliminate some of the drug trafficking that’s funding terrorism.

But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can’t coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he’s making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants.

OBAMA: What I’ve said is we’re going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.

And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

BROKAW: Senator McCain?

MCCAIN: Well, Katie (ph), thank you.

You know, my hero is a guy named Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt used to say walk softly — talk softly, but carry a big stick. Senator Obama likes to talk loudly.

In fact, he said he wants to announce that he’s going to attack Pakistan. Remarkable.

You know, if you are a country and you’re trying to gain the support of another country, then you want to do everything you can that they would act in a cooperative fashion.

When you announce that you’re going to launch an attack into another country, it’s pretty obvious that you have the effect that it had in Pakistan: It turns public opinion against us.

Now, let me just go back with you very briefly. We drove the Russians out with — the Afghan freedom fighters drove the Russians out of Afghanistan, and then we made a most serious mistake. We washed our hands of Afghanistan. The Taliban came back in, Al Qaida, we then had the situation that required us to conduct the Afghan war.

Now, our relations with Pakistan are critical, because the border areas are being used as safe havens by the Taliban and Al Qaida and other extremist organizations, and we have to get their support.

Now, General Petraeus had a strategy, the same strategy — very, very different, because of the conditions and the situation — but the same fundamental strategy that succeeded in Iraq. And that is to get the support of the people.

We need to help the Pakistani government go into Waziristan, where I visited, a very rough country, and — and get the support of the people, and get them to work with us and turn against the cruel Taliban and others.

And by working and coordinating our efforts together, not threatening to attack them, but working with them, and where necessary use force, but talk softly, but carry a big stick.

OBAMA: Tom, just a…

BROKAW: Senator McCain…

OBAMA: … just a quick follow-up on this. I think…

MCCAIN: If we’re going to have follow-ups, then I will want follow-ups, as well.

BROKAW: No, I know. So but I think we get at it…

MCCAIN: It’d be fine with me. It’d be fine with me.

BROKAW: … if I can, with this question.

OBAMA: Then let’s have one.

BROKAW: All right, let’s have a follow-up.

MCCAIN: It’d be fine with me.

OBAMA: Just — just — just a quick follow-up, because I think — I think this is important.

BROKAW: I’m just the hired help here, so, I mean…

(LAUGHTER)

OBAMA: You’re doing a great job, Tom.

Look, I — I want to be very clear about what I said. Nobody called for the invasion of Pakistan. Senator McCain continues to repeat this.

What I said was the same thing that the audience here today heard me say, which is, if Pakistan is unable or unwilling to hunt down bin Laden and take him out, then we should.

Now, that I think has to be our policy, because they are threatening to kill more Americans.

Now, Senator McCain suggests that somehow, you know, I’m green behind the ears and, you know, I’m just spouting off, and he’s somber and responsible.

[...]

video >>

source NYT October 7, 2008 >> read more>>

Los hombres son de Wikipedia y las mujeres de Facebook

The New York Times building in New York, NY ac...

Image via Wikipedia

Los hombres son de Wikipedia y las mujeres de Facebook

Por: Delia Rodríguez

A veces una sola cifra sirve para desatar la polémica. La última ha sido esta: sólo un 13% de los artículos de la Wikipedia han sido escritos por mujeres. La proporcionó The New York Times en un reportaje que ha hecho correr ríos de tinta porque resulta que en la fuente de conocimiento virtual en la que en teoría no debería existir ningún tipo de discriminación (escribe quien quiere y ni siquiera es necesario desvelar el sexo) la participación femenina es menor aún que en otros foros. Por ejemplo el OpEd Project la ha calculado en un 15% para las páginas de opinión de los principales diarios norteamericanos. 

¿Significa una tasa tan baja que la enciclopedia (o sus enciclopedistas) son machistas?

(Fuente >>)

Crisis for the Rich, Via Crucis for the Poor

World map showing countries by nominal GDP per...

Crisis de los ricos, via crucis de los pobres

Crisis for the Rich, Via Crucis for the Poor

Theories of evolution after Darwin assume a dynamic of divergences. Two species can derive from one in common; every now and then, these variations can disappear gradually or abruptly, but two species never end up flowing together into one. There is no mixing except within a given species. In the long view, a hen and a man are distant relatives, descendants of some reptile, and each one represents a successful response by life in its struggle for survival.

In other words, diversity is the form in which life expands and adapts to diverse environments and conditions. Diversity and life are synonymous for the biosphere. Vital processes tend toward diversity but at the same time they are the expression of a unity, the biosphere, Gaia, the exuberance of life in permanent struggle for the survival of its own miracle in hostile surroundings.

For the same reason, cultural diversity is a condition for the life of humanity. That is to say, and even though it might be motive enough in itself, diversity is not limited merely to avoiding the boredom of monotony but instead is, besides, part of our vital survival as humanity.

Nevertheless, we humans are the only species that has replaced the natural and discrete loss of species with an artificial and threatening extermination, with industrial depredation and with the pollution of consumerism. Those of us who insist on a possible though not inevitable “progress of history” based on knowledge and the exercise of equal-liberty, can see that humanity, so often placing itself in danger of extinction, has achieved some advances that have allowed it to survive and abide its growing muscular power. And even so, we have added nothing good to the rest of nature. In many respects, perhaps in that natural process of trial and error, we have regressed or our errors have become exponentially more dangerous.

Consumerism is one of those errors. That insatiable appetite has little or nothing to do with progress toward a possible and yet improbable post-scarcity, hunger-free era, and everything to do with the more primitive era of greed and gluttony. Let’s not say with an animal instinct, because not even lions monopolize the savanna or practice systematic extermination of their victims, and because even pigs are sated sometimes.

The culture of consumerism has erred in several ways. First, it has contradicted the aforementioned condition, passing over cultural diversities, substituting them for its universal trinkets or creating a pseudo-diversity where a Japanese laborer or German office worker can enjoy for two days a piece of traditional Peruvian craftwork made in China, or for five days the most beautiful Venetian curtains imported from Taiwan, before they fall apart from use. Second, because it also has threatened the ecological balance with its unlimited extractions and its returns in the form of immortal garbage.

We can observe concrete examples all around us. We might say that it is good fortune that a worker could enjoy commodities that previously were reserved only for the upper classes, the unproductive classes, the consumer classes. Nonetheless, that consumption – induced by cultural and ideological pressure – often has been turned into the very purpose of the worker and an instrument of the economy. Which logically means that the individual-as-tool has been turned into a means of the economy as individual-as-consumer.

In almost all of the developed countries, or those following that “model of development,” the furniture that invades the markets is intended to last only a few years. Or a few months. The furniture items are pretty, they look good just like almost everything in the culture of consumption, but if we look closely they are scratched, missing a screw or our out of square. That preoccupation of my family of carpenters with improving the design of a chair so that it might last a hundred years turns out to be exotic now. But the new disposable furniture does not worry us too much because we know that it costs little and that, in two or three years we are going to buy some more new stuff, which happens to provide more interest and variation in the decoration of our homes and offices and above all stimulates the world economy. According to the current theory, what we throw away here aids the industrial development of some poor country. Thus we are good, because we are consumers.

And yet, those furniture items, even the cheapest ones, have consumed trees and burned up fuel in their long journey from China or from Malaysia. The logic of “dispose of it after use,” which is most reasonable for a plastic syringe, becomes a necessary law for stimulating the economy and maintaining the perpetual growth of GDP, with its respective crises and phobias whenever its fall provokes a recession of two percent. In order to escape the recession one must increase the dosage of the drug. The United States alone, for example, dedicates billions of dollars so that its residents might continue to consume, to spend, in order to escape the madness of the recession and thus allow the world to continue to turn, consuming and discarding.

But those discards, as cheap as they may be – consumerism is based on cheap, disposable merchandise that makes the recycling of durable products almost inaccessible – possess bits of wood, plastic, batteries, steel pipe, screws, glass and more plastic. In the United States all of that and more goes into the garbage – even in this time of what is called “great crisis” for the wrong reasons – and in the poor countries, the poor go out looking for that garbage. Over the long term, the one who ends up consuming all the garbage is nature, while humanity continues to suspend its changes of habit in order to get out of the recession first and in order to sustain the growth of the economy later.

But what is the meaning of “growth of the economy,” that two or three per cent with which the whole world is obsessed, from North to South and East to West?

The world is convinced that it finds itself in a terrible crisis. But the world was already in crisis. Now the crisis is defined as worldwide because 1) it proceeds from and affects the economy of the wealthiest; 2) the simplified paradigm of development has radiated its hysteria out to the rest of the world, undermining its legitimacy. But in the United States people are still flooding the stores and restaurants and their cut backs never involve hunger, even in the gravest cases of the millions of workers without jobs. In our peripheral countries a crisis means children begging in the streets. In the United States it tends to mean consumers consuming a little less while they await the next government check.

In order to get out of that “crisis,” the experts squeeze their brains and the solution is always the same: increase consumption. Ironically, increasing consumption by lending regular people their own money through the big private banks that receive rescue aid from the government. It’s not only a matter of saving a few banks, but, above all, of saving an ideology and culture that cannot survive on their own without frequent ad hoc injections: financial stimulus, wars that promote industry and control popular participation, drugs and entertainment that stimulate, tranquilize and anaesthetize in the name of the common good.

Will we have really emerged from the crisis when the world returns to a five percent growth rate through the stimulation of consumption in the wealthy countries? Will we not be laying the ground for the next crisis, a real – human and ecological – crisis and not an artificial crisis like the one we have now? Will we truly realize that this one is not truly a crisis but just a warning, which is to say, an opportunity for changing our habits?

Every day is a crisis because every day we choose a road. But there are crises that are a long via crucis and others that are critical because, for oppressed and oppressors alike, it means a double possibility: the confirmation of a system or its annihilation. So far it has been the first because of a lack of alternatives to the second. But one must never underestimate history. Nobody could have ever foreseen an alternative to medieval feudalism or to the system of slavery. Or almost nobody. The history of the most recent millennia demonstrates that utopians usually foresee the future with an exaggerated precision. But like today, the utopians have always had a bad reputation. Because mockery and disrepute are the form that every dominant system has always used to avoid the proliferation of people with too much imagination.

Dr. Jorge Majfud

Febrero, 2009

Lincoln University

Political Affairs (USA)

Translated by Dr. Bruce Campbell. St. John’s University