I read excerpts of this book in "Playboy" years ago. Years later I would buy a copy and read a hundred or so pages. I was selling books at the time and someone bought it from me. Sales are sales.
A few months ago I read "Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey" by David Horowitz and reviewed it at this blog. I had not previously connected that he was one of the biographers of the twice-started book. I like Horowitz and after reading "Radical Son..." I placed the book back on my reading list.
I like this book. Unlike some people who sympathize with dissident causes, I like the Kennedys. I respect them. I do not idolize them or vote for them but I do not hold them in contempt or wish ill upon them as do certain talk radio hosts and their hostile callers.
Regardless of what one's feelings about the Kennedys, they are interesting people. Horowitz and Collier do not trivialize their subjects nor do they gild any lilies. The chefs make good use of the ingredients provided.
For me, the most interesting character in this saga is not a Kennedy. The most intriguing character is Lem Billings. It is easy to dismiss Billings as a sycophant but that term understates whatever it was he was and whatever it was he did.
From time to time "The Boston Globe" would print obituaries about "a friend of the Kennedys." These would be fairly prominent and successful people whose lives would be summarized by their relationship to the First Family of Massachusetts. I don't recall ever reading an obit about a friend of a Carter or a Ford or even a friend of the Bush Family. The Kennedys might not have invented the entourage but they certainly redefined the idiom.
Billings started out as JFK's best friend in prep school. Odd as this might sound he would make a career and even a life as a "Kennedy friend." He was a confidant at large to the president. After the assassination he made a Barry Sanders maneuver and somehow found himself in Bobby's inner circle. Fast forward and Billings would be hanging out with Bobbie's sons with whom he would drop acid and shoot smack and lecture their peers (for lack of a better term) on the significance of the vocation as a Kennedy friend.
JFK is still my favorite Kennedy and one of my favorite presidents. A sickly kid, it is amazing that he saw adulthood. It's surprising that the Navy accepted him. Because he was so frail, JFK spent a lot of his childhood in bed reading books. He was incredibly well read.
I usually tune out the blah blah blah about declining morals, social media, hook-ups, etc. Didn't anyone have another hobby in the old days? Jackie Kennedy's father bragged about committing adultery just hours into his honeymoon. Marriage actually did slow down JFK. The president was linked to roughly thirty women but the bachelor Kennedy had a steady stream of anonymous waitresses and flight attendants that would make Wilt Chamberlain look like an underachiever. For all of his bad health, JFK's libido never lagged. And he wasn't the only gregarious fellow of his generation either.
One of my favorite JFK stories: As he was courting Jackie, the Auchincloss family were a bit snooty to his clan, whom they regarded as gauche and smelling of new money. At the reception JFK reminded the wedding party of the Auchincloss tradition of smashing their fine crystal in the fire place at the conclusion of the toast. The Kennedys strike back.
Horowitz and Collier load up the bon mots and interesting asides. Times have changed. One cannot imagine an up and coming government attorney getting into a bloody brawl stemming from a touch football game. But that was, if not par for the course in RFK's era, not so out of the ordinary as to be worthy of litigation or investigations.
One is impressed about how fast families can fall. JFK and RFK had great respect for the written word. Bobbie's oldest son would brag that he never read a book from cover to cover. The family's political outlook would follow a similar trajectory. The book was written as Horowitz was undergoing his own philosophical upheaval. The authors don't spend much time on the contrast of JFK's world view and Teddy's perspective.
Pundits like to yammer about the right to left evolution of the family. There is another way of viewing the family's metamorphosis. The Kennedys were outsiders who became insiders. Joe Kennedy, the ambassador, lived with a mentality that the ever-excluded Irish Catholics needed to prove their mettle. They had to demonstrate that they were up to the challenges the establishment might impose upon them.
Sometime circa Camelot the Kennedys became the establishment. The family of anti-Communism and tax cuts and even staunch isolationism became advocates of big government. Why not? They were insiders now. The nation was now Silly Putty in the hands of the elite. Ask what you can do TO your country.
The devolution is sometimes amusing in a car crash spectator sort of way. It is also painful in a car crash spectator sort of way. The decline of the Kennedys dovetails with the decline of our country. This is a book well worth reading.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Watching Hillary
Elijiah Cummings is making his opening statement. I cannot believe how reckless he is. Is he trying to sink Hillary? He recited a series of insults by Carly Fiorina, Mike Huckabee, Lindsey Graham and others. Rule # 1 of public relations is do not repeat the criticisms....
Oh, now Hillary is speaking.
Oh, now Hillary is speaking.
Monday, October 19, 2015
Not Exactly A Book Review: Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left by David Horowitz
I feel like I am preaching to the choir by recommending this book. Readers of this blog are not as docile as Mitt Romney or John McCain or even George Bush who would not fight in the public square to defend his war or terrorism. If we could get Reince Priebus and all the presidential candidates not named Donald Trump to read this book, we would all be better off.
Let's not leave Trump behind just yet. Horowitz's premise is that the Left is vulnerable and the only way to exploit their vulnerabilities is to expose the human victims of Leftist ideology. Think Detroit. Yes it's a hellhole and a national joke but what might get forgotten is that a half century of Democratic rule has left a toll of human disaster that makes things like hurricanes trivial by comparison.
There are dozens of other US cities under long-term Dem rule following Detroit's trajectory. Think of the disaster that is public education. It's gotten worse just about everywhere but it is especially bad in cities ruled by Democrats. Urban blight and the farce of public education are two examples that Horowitz suggests we throw back in their faces.
Trump threw sanctuary cities back in the faces of the Dems and he was launched directly to the top of the polls. Horowitz would probably approve.
I have not been posting a lot at this blog in part because I can't get excited about the GOP candidates. I like Trump's spirit but I don't think he is the answer. Many of us were hoping someone else might pick up the fight.
Returning to Hororwitz's book, I have a a couple of criticisms. Horowitz is of the opinion that we should parrot the same slogans the way the Dems do. To that I say, we are cats and they are cattle. We fancy ourselves free thinkers and they are obsessed with pruning their thoughts to conform to a rigid orthodoxy called correctness. We concern ourselves with truth and they concern themselves with sentiment. Being largely uninformed, the Democratic base is dependent on slogans. They want to be told exactly what to think and what to say.
But should we want to echo the same verbiage, we would be hard-pressed to beat the Dems. What Horowitz seems to miss is that 90+% of the news media repeat Dem slogans for them. They legitimatize their every viewpoint. War on women, health care reform, Wall Street reform, gun violence, living wage, the gap between rich and poor, global warming/climate change/climate disruption...We cannot compete against the Dems and the media when it comes to cliches.
With the nitpicking out of the way, I will sing my praises to Horowitz. He is one of the richest minds of our era. Given his Leftist background, Horowitz brings more to the table than say, Ann Coulter or anyone at Fox News.
Horowitz scores points with me for admonishing those on our side who call the opposition liberals. Horowitz prefers leftist or radical. Sometimes those labels are apropos but the opposition is dominated by people who are about as ideological as Al Capone or Charles Ponzi or Attila the Hun. Jonathan Gruber is not a liberal, he is a con artist. Lois Lerner is not a liberal, she is a criminal. Eric Holder is not a liberal, he is a thug. Barack Obama is all of the above (except liberal.)
Horowitz lays out a viable strategy. What is so overwhelmingly frustrating is that the truth is on our side. We can show victims of ISIS, victims of body part brokers, victims of Obamanomics, victims of Obamacare, victims of jihad, victims of Fast and Furious, victims of the war on coal, victims of IRS abuse, victims of voter fraud, victims of sanctuary cities, victims of John Corzine...we have a lot to choose from.
This book is well worth reading but I am probably preaching to the choir.
Let's not leave Trump behind just yet. Horowitz's premise is that the Left is vulnerable and the only way to exploit their vulnerabilities is to expose the human victims of Leftist ideology. Think Detroit. Yes it's a hellhole and a national joke but what might get forgotten is that a half century of Democratic rule has left a toll of human disaster that makes things like hurricanes trivial by comparison.
There are dozens of other US cities under long-term Dem rule following Detroit's trajectory. Think of the disaster that is public education. It's gotten worse just about everywhere but it is especially bad in cities ruled by Democrats. Urban blight and the farce of public education are two examples that Horowitz suggests we throw back in their faces.
Trump threw sanctuary cities back in the faces of the Dems and he was launched directly to the top of the polls. Horowitz would probably approve.
I have not been posting a lot at this blog in part because I can't get excited about the GOP candidates. I like Trump's spirit but I don't think he is the answer. Many of us were hoping someone else might pick up the fight.
Returning to Hororwitz's book, I have a a couple of criticisms. Horowitz is of the opinion that we should parrot the same slogans the way the Dems do. To that I say, we are cats and they are cattle. We fancy ourselves free thinkers and they are obsessed with pruning their thoughts to conform to a rigid orthodoxy called correctness. We concern ourselves with truth and they concern themselves with sentiment. Being largely uninformed, the Democratic base is dependent on slogans. They want to be told exactly what to think and what to say.
But should we want to echo the same verbiage, we would be hard-pressed to beat the Dems. What Horowitz seems to miss is that 90+% of the news media repeat Dem slogans for them. They legitimatize their every viewpoint. War on women, health care reform, Wall Street reform, gun violence, living wage, the gap between rich and poor, global warming/climate change/climate disruption...We cannot compete against the Dems and the media when it comes to cliches.
With the nitpicking out of the way, I will sing my praises to Horowitz. He is one of the richest minds of our era. Given his Leftist background, Horowitz brings more to the table than say, Ann Coulter or anyone at Fox News.
Horowitz scores points with me for admonishing those on our side who call the opposition liberals. Horowitz prefers leftist or radical. Sometimes those labels are apropos but the opposition is dominated by people who are about as ideological as Al Capone or Charles Ponzi or Attila the Hun. Jonathan Gruber is not a liberal, he is a con artist. Lois Lerner is not a liberal, she is a criminal. Eric Holder is not a liberal, he is a thug. Barack Obama is all of the above (except liberal.)
Horowitz lays out a viable strategy. What is so overwhelmingly frustrating is that the truth is on our side. We can show victims of ISIS, victims of body part brokers, victims of Obamanomics, victims of Obamacare, victims of jihad, victims of Fast and Furious, victims of the war on coal, victims of IRS abuse, victims of voter fraud, victims of sanctuary cities, victims of John Corzine...we have a lot to choose from.
This book is well worth reading but I am probably preaching to the choir.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
CNN: 15.3 Million Watch Hillary's Debate
Vs. 24 Million who watched Fox Republican Debate
Vs. 22.9 Million who watched CNN's Republican debate.
Vs. 22.9 Million who watched CNN's Republican debate.
Reading Between The Lines: How Many People Watched Democratic Debates?
I spent over an hour trying to find out the number of people who watched last night's CNN debates. I am not interested in pollster lingo, so a 11.6 Nielsen means nothing to me. I realize that's 11.6 % of total number of homes with televisions but 11.6 % of how many? Does the number of faces who watched CNN last night exceed the 25 million who watched the first GOP debate or the 23 million who watched the second?
Sometimes it's what they don't say: If CNN et al reveal the lingo but not the actual numbers if viewers it's because the absolute numbers are unfavorable to the Dems. If they highlight that the debate was the highest-ever Democratic debate while omitting the numbers, it's because the numbers are unfavorable to the Dems. If we are repeatedly told that GOP debates' audiences were inflated by the presence of Donald Trump, it is to excuse a less than impressive Dem audience.
The numbers will come out soon enough, after the pundits can praise Hillary and the 3 VP candidates and the bitter man who missed The Russian Revolution by a century. Oh and they will excuse the low numbers by the Mets vs. Dodgers competition. Oh and the afterglow of the Cubs victory.
Prediction: After the Hillary praise subsides, we will hear about the enthusiasm gap.
Sometimes it's what they don't say: If CNN et al reveal the lingo but not the actual numbers if viewers it's because the absolute numbers are unfavorable to the Dems. If they highlight that the debate was the highest-ever Democratic debate while omitting the numbers, it's because the numbers are unfavorable to the Dems. If we are repeatedly told that GOP debates' audiences were inflated by the presence of Donald Trump, it is to excuse a less than impressive Dem audience.
The numbers will come out soon enough, after the pundits can praise Hillary and the 3 VP candidates and the bitter man who missed The Russian Revolution by a century. Oh and they will excuse the low numbers by the Mets vs. Dodgers competition. Oh and the afterglow of the Cubs victory.
Prediction: After the Hillary praise subsides, we will hear about the enthusiasm gap.
Sunday, October 11, 2015
Not Exactly A Movie Review: "Black Mass" Fails As Sacrilege
There are elements of "Black Mass" that are compelling. I must say again that truth is more sensational than fiction and the Bulger Family saga is at times too sensational to believe. Imagine submitting a script where Al Capone and Mayor Daley are brothers. "No. Sorry. Tone down the coincidence and you might have a story. The most powerful OC figure in the state just happens to have a brother who is the most powerful politician in the state? C'mon!"
There are so many facets to this story and almost everyone in New England has at least one "six degrees of separation" with the Bulger Family. I am a virtual recluse and I have several myself. It is hard to capture or convey the enmeshment that was Massachusetts.
Where "Black Mass" fails grandly, grossly and irredeemably is in the treatment of the FBI and FBI corruption. "Black Mass" should have been called "White Wash."
Frustratingly, Hollywood practices a long-term bias against displaying institutional corruption. It used to make movies like "And Justice For All" and "Serpico" (which was first a book by Peter Maas.) One, an original fictional screenplay and one a biopic (both with Al Pacino in the lead role) give us a glimpse of systems "out of order." One could say that "Serpico" actually reveals an orderly system of widespread illegality that allows the players to navigate a broken system but the system is broken nonetheless.
Fast forward to "The Big Easy." Spoiler alert, if that term applies to movies so terrible they are spoiled before they are showcased. Corruption in New Orleans and hero himself is tainted. Corruption is blamed on two bad apples. Bad apples smashed and hero marries crusading innocent.
"True Believer." Convoluted script but the essence is that there is nothing wrong with the system. Just one bad apple and that bad apple is removed from the barrel. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
"Hurricane." I did not see this movie because I read to reviews and didn't think I could sit through it. The story of Hurricane Carter has a lot of angles: racism, poverty, celebrity, the zeitgeist of a volcanic era. Even the brain dead critics could not let this one pass. Again, I did not see it but on its release, "Hurricane" was panned for reducing a complicated story to, you guessed it: one bad apple.
I don't see Hollywood exploring institutional corruption anytime soon. Movies are now made by people who grew up with televison. Television as a sponsor-driven medium does not challenge the status quo. Television is an ongoing public relations segment for the criminal justice system. Do you ever get the feeling when you watch a police drama, that no matter what the title is, you are watching the same show? "Law & Order," "Criminal Minds," "CSI," "X-Files" ad infinatum...it's all from the same vat?
If that sounds like an overstatement, I can almost guarantee you that they treat one subject exactly the same. Nothing wrong with the system that removing one bad apple won't correct. Hollywood is now in the hands of people whose worldview is dominated not by literature or stage or Scripture or even other movies, but rather by the simplistic perspective of the boob tube.
Returning to the specifics of FBI wrongdoing, especially the Boston field office, I refer you to Wikipedia's summary of the life of FBI Agent, H. Paul Rico. Rico has been scrubbed from "Black Mass." Too bad. Next to James Bulger himself, Rico might be the most significant real life character.
The idea that John Connolly introduced criminality to the FBI in 1975 is insulting to the viewer. Go back ten years and Rico et al (read FBI) is complicit in a murder and sends four innocent men to prison to protect a notorious organized crime figure (Joseph Barboza.) Significantly, this is not the only blemish on Agent Rico's career. He would die in jail awaiting trial for the murder of Roger Wheeler, an event covered in the movie without the mention of Rico's assistance in the crime.
Also significant is Rico's close association with J. Edgar Hoover. As a fan and loyalist, H. Paul styled his moniker on J. Edgar. He was rumored to be a member of the most exclusive inner circle within the FBI, the gay contingent that included Hoover and Clyde Tolson. Years later, a House Committee would reveal that Hoover knew of and allowed (and possibly facilitated) Rico's criminality.
I understand deleting events, scenes and characters for brevity sake. H. Paul Rico however, is too crucial to the story to be left on the cutting room floor. It's like omitting the demon from "The Exorcist" or Elliot Ness from "The Untouchables" or Butch Cassidy from that buddy movie..
"Black Mass" is not just disappointing, it is insulting for its cowardice. Seven word summary: Agents Morris And Connally: Two Bad Apples.
Further Reading:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt414/html/CRPT-108hrpt414-vol1.htm
There are so many facets to this story and almost everyone in New England has at least one "six degrees of separation" with the Bulger Family. I am a virtual recluse and I have several myself. It is hard to capture or convey the enmeshment that was Massachusetts.
Where "Black Mass" fails grandly, grossly and irredeemably is in the treatment of the FBI and FBI corruption. "Black Mass" should have been called "White Wash."
Frustratingly, Hollywood practices a long-term bias against displaying institutional corruption. It used to make movies like "And Justice For All" and "Serpico" (which was first a book by Peter Maas.) One, an original fictional screenplay and one a biopic (both with Al Pacino in the lead role) give us a glimpse of systems "out of order." One could say that "Serpico" actually reveals an orderly system of widespread illegality that allows the players to navigate a broken system but the system is broken nonetheless.
Fast forward to "The Big Easy." Spoiler alert, if that term applies to movies so terrible they are spoiled before they are showcased. Corruption in New Orleans and hero himself is tainted. Corruption is blamed on two bad apples. Bad apples smashed and hero marries crusading innocent.
"True Believer." Convoluted script but the essence is that there is nothing wrong with the system. Just one bad apple and that bad apple is removed from the barrel. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.
"Hurricane." I did not see this movie because I read to reviews and didn't think I could sit through it. The story of Hurricane Carter has a lot of angles: racism, poverty, celebrity, the zeitgeist of a volcanic era. Even the brain dead critics could not let this one pass. Again, I did not see it but on its release, "Hurricane" was panned for reducing a complicated story to, you guessed it: one bad apple.
I don't see Hollywood exploring institutional corruption anytime soon. Movies are now made by people who grew up with televison. Television as a sponsor-driven medium does not challenge the status quo. Television is an ongoing public relations segment for the criminal justice system. Do you ever get the feeling when you watch a police drama, that no matter what the title is, you are watching the same show? "Law & Order," "Criminal Minds," "CSI," "X-Files" ad infinatum...it's all from the same vat?
If that sounds like an overstatement, I can almost guarantee you that they treat one subject exactly the same. Nothing wrong with the system that removing one bad apple won't correct. Hollywood is now in the hands of people whose worldview is dominated not by literature or stage or Scripture or even other movies, but rather by the simplistic perspective of the boob tube.
Returning to the specifics of FBI wrongdoing, especially the Boston field office, I refer you to Wikipedia's summary of the life of FBI Agent, H. Paul Rico. Rico has been scrubbed from "Black Mass." Too bad. Next to James Bulger himself, Rico might be the most significant real life character.
The idea that John Connolly introduced criminality to the FBI in 1975 is insulting to the viewer. Go back ten years and Rico et al (read FBI) is complicit in a murder and sends four innocent men to prison to protect a notorious organized crime figure (Joseph Barboza.) Significantly, this is not the only blemish on Agent Rico's career. He would die in jail awaiting trial for the murder of Roger Wheeler, an event covered in the movie without the mention of Rico's assistance in the crime.
Also significant is Rico's close association with J. Edgar Hoover. As a fan and loyalist, H. Paul styled his moniker on J. Edgar. He was rumored to be a member of the most exclusive inner circle within the FBI, the gay contingent that included Hoover and Clyde Tolson. Years later, a House Committee would reveal that Hoover knew of and allowed (and possibly facilitated) Rico's criminality.
I understand deleting events, scenes and characters for brevity sake. H. Paul Rico however, is too crucial to the story to be left on the cutting room floor. It's like omitting the demon from "The Exorcist" or Elliot Ness from "The Untouchables" or Butch Cassidy from that buddy movie..
"Black Mass" is not just disappointing, it is insulting for its cowardice. Seven word summary: Agents Morris And Connally: Two Bad Apples.
Further Reading:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-108hrpt414/html/CRPT-108hrpt414-vol1.htm
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Guess Which Administration Banned Pork From Federal Prisons?
From the 'How Dare You Call Him A Muslim' File:
The nation’s pork producers are in an uproar after the federal government abruptly removed bacon, pork chops, pork links, ham and all other pig products from the national menu for 206,000 federal inmates.
The ban started with the new fiscal year last week.
The nation’s pork producers are in an uproar after the federal government abruptly removed bacon, pork chops, pork links, ham and all other pig products from the national menu for 206,000 federal inmates.
The ban started with the new fiscal year last week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)