We live in a time of startling stagnation. The basic design of the automobile and airplane haven't changed in my lifetime. Medicine has made only baby strides in the fight against cancer, which is the black plague of modern times. Life expectancy has risen, but primarily because of the introduction of antibiotics, immunization and sterilzation, which dramatically reduced childhood deaths decades ago. It's a disgrace that the United States ranks 50th in the world in life expectancy, just behind Wallis and Futuna. As of 2004, the U.S. ranked 29th in the world in infant mortality. Those figures are a shameful indictment of our horrendous medical establishment. See Michael Moore's Sicko- it does a great job of illustrating this.
Hollywood has become almost incapable of producing anything original. When will they stop torturing the public with awful remakes of old television shows? How low will they go with the non-stop juvenile fart and potty humor "comedies?" When will they stop remaking movies that are barely a few decades old? When they reshot Psycho scene for scene a while back, that convinced me that there was little or no hope for them. How could they think they could top Alfred Hitchcock? It must be frustrating for all those struggling waiters and waitresses who have a gem of a screenplay at home in a drawer, but no one to peddle it to.
Message to Hollywood and the publishing world; not every story has to be centered in New York or Los Angeles. There are 48 other states in the union. Not every character has to be a lawyer or doctor. Some people aren't divorced, and get along well with their biological children. Some large men cannot be punched out by small women. Just some food for thought.
Sorry for being so grumpy- some days are like that. Our culture is just becoming so dumbed down that it's hard to stomach sometimes. The movie Idiocracy didn't paint such a far-fetched picture at all, in my view. What would Charles Dickens do in today's world? Imagine agents looking at some of his opening chapters, with their long sentences and deliberate pacing. It would be a miracle if he became published at all. Even a writer as recent as Vonnegut wouldn't have a chance either; "where are you going with this- it's all over the place" or "I don't know what you're trying to do here" would be some of the typical responses he'd get.
Sometimes it's hard not to feel as bitter as Ambrose Bierce, who of course would have no chance of being published today, either. I can only imagine some of the entries he'd have in a modern version of The Devil's Dictionary. Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken would be like kids in a candy store today, with the plethora of juicy targets for their poisionous barbs. They'd have no one willing to give them a public vehicle for their criticisms, but they'd certainly have plenty to comment on.
Okay, now it's back to watching the Disney Channel with my kids....
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
My JFK Assassination Obsession Pt. 2
When the House of Representatives finally voted to authorize a new investigation into the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. (but not, for some reason, Robert F. Kennedy), I was very excited. Surely, I thought, my liberal heroes in the Democratic party would be certain to leave no stone unturned in their search for the truth about these pivotal events in our recent history.
Early on, amid steady media references to the cost of the investigation (like these reporters are ever worried over the enormous size and cost of government), a rather incomprehensible feud developed between Rep. Henry Gonzalez, who'd been one of the loudest supporters of a new investigation in the House, and Richard Sprague, the noted prosecutor who'd been tabbed as chief counsel for the House Assassinations Committee (HSCA). Those of us who'd witnessed the similarly inexplicable infighting between intrepid critics like Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg, and the split over the Jim Garrision investigation, were all too familiar with this kind of power struggle and battle of egos, stoked perhaps by an unseen hand that stood to gain tremendously in the process. Anyone who participates on JFK assassination internet forums to this day, knows how common nasty, personalized arguments are between individuals who agree that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. These deep rifts seemingly ensure that no peace can ever be reached between many of the most high profile members of the critical community.
When G. Robert Blakey replaced Sprague as HSCA chief counsel, the fix was in. Under Blakey's stewardship, the committee signed an odious secrecy agreement with the CIA, which Sprague had rightly refused to do. They also supported every untenable conclusion of the Warren Commission, even the long discredited single bullet theory. I watched the few televised hearings with stunned disbelief. There was such a clear agenda; every single member of the Committee, including all my beloved Democrats, revealed their support for the impossible official fairy tale with a transparency that was obvious to those of us who knew the subject matter. Even with their belated "probable conspiracy" finding, due to the last minute inclusion of the acoustics tape evidence, the whole congressional "investigation" was terribly disillusioning.
In the aftermath of the HSCA fiasco, I still kept connected to the research community through a subscription to Penn Jones' excellent monthly newsletter The Continuing Inquiry. They were even nice enough to publish an article I wrote, in January 1983, entitled "Who Really Killed JFK?" In the article, I argued for a larger conspiracy, involving very powerful forces, and expressed skepticism over the popular view that right-wing extremist groups like the John Birch Society or the Minutemen, in conjunction with anti-Castro groups and "renegade"elements of the CIA, had been behind the assassination. Although Penn could often go overboard with scattershot predictions that rarely came true, and didn't painstakingly research every tip he got before publishing it, he was responsible for unearthing a lot of tremendously important information over the years. Jack White and Gary Shaw edited TCI, and Gary Mack (back when he was a true believer in conspiracy) wrote a lot of pieces as well. It's interesting to think about where these three are, some twenty five years later: Jack is the scourge of official skeptics everywhere, with a strong presence on internet forums; Shaw has opted to withdraw from the critical community, which is a huge loss for everyone; Mack has a highly visible position with the Sixth Floor Museum, and appears regularly on t.v. documentaries that promote the lone assassin nonsense. Even Penn Jones himself retired from research in the final years of his life, fatigued with years of effort that had made little inroads against the monstrous official lie. I can certainly understand how Jones felt, and how Gary Shaw feels now; when I read some of the more childish threads on an assassination forum, or watch yet another dishonest t.v. production, I often question why I still care about this issue. After the especially distorted ABC 40th anniversary special, hosted by Peter Jennings, even my sister told me I'd been wrong about there being a conspiracy. Years of my lectures on the subject were blasted out of her mind with one fell swoop by the soothing voice of a trusted talking head; mass media is more powerful than blood, I suppose.
I read David Lifton's Best Evidence with great interest in the early 1980s. I thought his body- alteration theory was compelling, but ultimately not something that would convince the public at large, let alone "respectable" historians and establishment reporters. Of course, with the way the mainstream press has ignored real information while swallowing the official lies about this case without the least bit of curiosity, it is doubtful that anything would convince them. I found his reliance on ex-Warren Commission counsel Wesley Liebeler disquieting, as his performance with the Commission had hardly been honorable and trustworthy. I believe Lifton produced some invaluable research, and think there's definitely something there, but ultimately I have to reject his particular interpretation of that research, much as I deeply respect John Armstrong's pioneering "Harvey and Lee" work, but dismiss the theory he formulates out of it all.
When the 20th anniversary of the JFK assassination arrived, television aired many programs devoted to the subject, but as always they adhered to the lone assassin myth. A few years later, in 1986, the Showtime network aired the program "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald," using real witnesses like Ruth Paine, Harold Norman and Buell Wesley Frazier. The show was a real farce, with the verdict a preordained certainty. Defense attorney Garry Spence (who would go on to talking head fame over the next decade or so) did an absymal job of "defending" Oswald. His knowledge of the case was so limited that he referred to Officer J.D. Tippit as "Tibbits." By the end of the decade, Marina Oswald, whose inconsistent and maddening testimony had helped to convict her husband in the public eye, was publicly proclaiming a belief in conspiracy. So was journalist Jack Anderson, who had helped to smear the original band of critics.
To be continued....
Early on, amid steady media references to the cost of the investigation (like these reporters are ever worried over the enormous size and cost of government), a rather incomprehensible feud developed between Rep. Henry Gonzalez, who'd been one of the loudest supporters of a new investigation in the House, and Richard Sprague, the noted prosecutor who'd been tabbed as chief counsel for the House Assassinations Committee (HSCA). Those of us who'd witnessed the similarly inexplicable infighting between intrepid critics like Mark Lane and Harold Weisberg, and the split over the Jim Garrision investigation, were all too familiar with this kind of power struggle and battle of egos, stoked perhaps by an unseen hand that stood to gain tremendously in the process. Anyone who participates on JFK assassination internet forums to this day, knows how common nasty, personalized arguments are between individuals who agree that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. These deep rifts seemingly ensure that no peace can ever be reached between many of the most high profile members of the critical community.
When G. Robert Blakey replaced Sprague as HSCA chief counsel, the fix was in. Under Blakey's stewardship, the committee signed an odious secrecy agreement with the CIA, which Sprague had rightly refused to do. They also supported every untenable conclusion of the Warren Commission, even the long discredited single bullet theory. I watched the few televised hearings with stunned disbelief. There was such a clear agenda; every single member of the Committee, including all my beloved Democrats, revealed their support for the impossible official fairy tale with a transparency that was obvious to those of us who knew the subject matter. Even with their belated "probable conspiracy" finding, due to the last minute inclusion of the acoustics tape evidence, the whole congressional "investigation" was terribly disillusioning.
In the aftermath of the HSCA fiasco, I still kept connected to the research community through a subscription to Penn Jones' excellent monthly newsletter The Continuing Inquiry. They were even nice enough to publish an article I wrote, in January 1983, entitled "Who Really Killed JFK?" In the article, I argued for a larger conspiracy, involving very powerful forces, and expressed skepticism over the popular view that right-wing extremist groups like the John Birch Society or the Minutemen, in conjunction with anti-Castro groups and "renegade"elements of the CIA, had been behind the assassination. Although Penn could often go overboard with scattershot predictions that rarely came true, and didn't painstakingly research every tip he got before publishing it, he was responsible for unearthing a lot of tremendously important information over the years. Jack White and Gary Shaw edited TCI, and Gary Mack (back when he was a true believer in conspiracy) wrote a lot of pieces as well. It's interesting to think about where these three are, some twenty five years later: Jack is the scourge of official skeptics everywhere, with a strong presence on internet forums; Shaw has opted to withdraw from the critical community, which is a huge loss for everyone; Mack has a highly visible position with the Sixth Floor Museum, and appears regularly on t.v. documentaries that promote the lone assassin nonsense. Even Penn Jones himself retired from research in the final years of his life, fatigued with years of effort that had made little inroads against the monstrous official lie. I can certainly understand how Jones felt, and how Gary Shaw feels now; when I read some of the more childish threads on an assassination forum, or watch yet another dishonest t.v. production, I often question why I still care about this issue. After the especially distorted ABC 40th anniversary special, hosted by Peter Jennings, even my sister told me I'd been wrong about there being a conspiracy. Years of my lectures on the subject were blasted out of her mind with one fell swoop by the soothing voice of a trusted talking head; mass media is more powerful than blood, I suppose.
I read David Lifton's Best Evidence with great interest in the early 1980s. I thought his body- alteration theory was compelling, but ultimately not something that would convince the public at large, let alone "respectable" historians and establishment reporters. Of course, with the way the mainstream press has ignored real information while swallowing the official lies about this case without the least bit of curiosity, it is doubtful that anything would convince them. I found his reliance on ex-Warren Commission counsel Wesley Liebeler disquieting, as his performance with the Commission had hardly been honorable and trustworthy. I believe Lifton produced some invaluable research, and think there's definitely something there, but ultimately I have to reject his particular interpretation of that research, much as I deeply respect John Armstrong's pioneering "Harvey and Lee" work, but dismiss the theory he formulates out of it all.
When the 20th anniversary of the JFK assassination arrived, television aired many programs devoted to the subject, but as always they adhered to the lone assassin myth. A few years later, in 1986, the Showtime network aired the program "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald," using real witnesses like Ruth Paine, Harold Norman and Buell Wesley Frazier. The show was a real farce, with the verdict a preordained certainty. Defense attorney Garry Spence (who would go on to talking head fame over the next decade or so) did an absymal job of "defending" Oswald. His knowledge of the case was so limited that he referred to Officer J.D. Tippit as "Tibbits." By the end of the decade, Marina Oswald, whose inconsistent and maddening testimony had helped to convict her husband in the public eye, was publicly proclaiming a belief in conspiracy. So was journalist Jack Anderson, who had helped to smear the original band of critics.
To be continued....
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
What Did They Do To The Simpsons?
Most television shows, even the best ones, tend to diminish in quality the longer they are on the air. However, there is no precedent for what's happened to the long- running Fox series The Simpsons. For most of the 1990s, this show was a hilarious, satirical romp, featuring a multitude of diverse characters and sharp and witty writing. Seasons 3-8 constitute some of the best stuff the medium has ever produced. However, over the past ten seasons or so, it has deteriorated into an objectionable, run of the mill series that is hardly recognizable to once loyal fans like myself.
There are many reasons for the decline of the show. Series creator and guiding force Matt Groening threw all his undivided attention into his new creation Futurama. Some of the old writers and producers left, to be replaced by the likes of Mike Scully and Ian Maxtone Graham. Another Fox cartoon series, Family Guy, had an unfortunate impact on The Simpsons, as the writers clearly borrowed from Peter Griffin's obnoxious, wildly over-the-top personality, which resulted in a newer, much less lovable Homer Simpson. The overuse of celebrity guest voices, which was never a strong point of the show, became ridiculous. The fact that these guest stars almost always played themselves, with too much fawning and not enough satire involved, really became embarrassing. Finally, the point of all too many shows became Homer's annoying behavior, which often took the family on trips to various locales. These plots were usually inexplicable and surreal, and relied far too heavily on cheap gags and crude humor, something the old shows did a good job of avoiding.
There are those who think The Simpsons hasn't jumped the shark, and is just as good as ever. I simply don't understand how anyone can watch an episode from season 4 or so, and compare it to one from the past five years, and not see a tremendous difference. It is a completely different show now. The voices are the same, the characters look pretty much the same, and some of the original writers are still there, but the show has degenerated into a sophmoric mess that can never be repaired. In my opinion, the writers often use the Comic Book Guy character to lampoon their own once die hard fans, who began complaining about the show's decline years ago on internet forum message boards. If you've read interviews with Groening or any of the other creative forces behind the show, or listened to the commentaries on the DVD sets, you get the sense that the character's catch phrase "worst episode ever" was a sarcastic slap in the face to those fans who were rightfully noticing the dramatic turn the show took in 1999 or so.
I still treasure the DVD sets I have of The Simpsons, but will not buy any beyond season 10. As it stands now, because it's been on the air for so long, there are actually more bad episodes of the show than good ones. Never has any television show that was so great become so terrible over the course of its series run. I try to remember all the highlights from the glory years; Bart losing his soul, Homer trying to gain weight to become declared handicapped, Bart offending Australia, the lemon tree episode, the monorail episode, Bart missing the Itchy and Scratchy movie, Flanders going insane and all the classic Halloween shows. But with the plots now centering around things like Homer getting raped by a panda, Marge taking steroids or Homer becoming a mnister so he can conduct a gay wedding, with Lisa's whining, eight year old vegetarian-Buddhist presence hovering in the background, it isn't easy.
There are many reasons for the decline of the show. Series creator and guiding force Matt Groening threw all his undivided attention into his new creation Futurama. Some of the old writers and producers left, to be replaced by the likes of Mike Scully and Ian Maxtone Graham. Another Fox cartoon series, Family Guy, had an unfortunate impact on The Simpsons, as the writers clearly borrowed from Peter Griffin's obnoxious, wildly over-the-top personality, which resulted in a newer, much less lovable Homer Simpson. The overuse of celebrity guest voices, which was never a strong point of the show, became ridiculous. The fact that these guest stars almost always played themselves, with too much fawning and not enough satire involved, really became embarrassing. Finally, the point of all too many shows became Homer's annoying behavior, which often took the family on trips to various locales. These plots were usually inexplicable and surreal, and relied far too heavily on cheap gags and crude humor, something the old shows did a good job of avoiding.
There are those who think The Simpsons hasn't jumped the shark, and is just as good as ever. I simply don't understand how anyone can watch an episode from season 4 or so, and compare it to one from the past five years, and not see a tremendous difference. It is a completely different show now. The voices are the same, the characters look pretty much the same, and some of the original writers are still there, but the show has degenerated into a sophmoric mess that can never be repaired. In my opinion, the writers often use the Comic Book Guy character to lampoon their own once die hard fans, who began complaining about the show's decline years ago on internet forum message boards. If you've read interviews with Groening or any of the other creative forces behind the show, or listened to the commentaries on the DVD sets, you get the sense that the character's catch phrase "worst episode ever" was a sarcastic slap in the face to those fans who were rightfully noticing the dramatic turn the show took in 1999 or so.
I still treasure the DVD sets I have of The Simpsons, but will not buy any beyond season 10. As it stands now, because it's been on the air for so long, there are actually more bad episodes of the show than good ones. Never has any television show that was so great become so terrible over the course of its series run. I try to remember all the highlights from the glory years; Bart losing his soul, Homer trying to gain weight to become declared handicapped, Bart offending Australia, the lemon tree episode, the monorail episode, Bart missing the Itchy and Scratchy movie, Flanders going insane and all the classic Halloween shows. But with the plots now centering around things like Homer getting raped by a panda, Marge taking steroids or Homer becoming a mnister so he can conduct a gay wedding, with Lisa's whining, eight year old vegetarian-Buddhist presence hovering in the background, it isn't easy.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Will The Last Civil Libertarian In America Please Close The Door
Where have all the civil libertarians gone? Nat Hentoff does what he can with the forum he has, and Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are about all that's left in Congress. The country has tilted strongly in a get tough/law and order/three strikes you're out direction. There is little or no sympathy for the imprisoned, even when DNA evidence proves their innocence. The fact that a defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty is only mentioned now when a celebrity or wealthy person is on trial. A staunch reluctance to see justice done runs through the entire legal profession as well as the general public at large.
We've become all too willing to grant police, judges and prosecutors the kind of power that no human being should have. "Power corrupts," as the classic nineteenth century civil libertarian Lord Acton noted. Every week, we can see new examples, on You Tube and elsewhere, of police officers caught on video tape blatantly abusing their authority. Where are the so-called "liberal" politicians speaking out about this obvious problem? Is anyone, even Reps. Paul or Kucinich, demanding more oversight and accountability for law enforcement officers?
The simple fact is we have too many laws and too many Americans in prison. The answer is not to make it easier to imprison more of them, for longer periods of time, for things that were formerly legal. The drug "war" has been a monstrous failure. The average citizen has little awareness of and less respect for the Bill of Rights than ever before. For a country that boasts constantly about our affinity for "rugged individualism," we place a depressingly unimportant value on individual rights. The Thought Police that Orwell warned us about are just around the corner, and more citizens each day wouldn't object in the least to their presence.
Classic liberalism is all but dead in American politics. The term "liberal" now describes a hack career politician who is devoted to mouthing empty, bureaucratic rhetoric to a few special interest groups. No one fights for the civil liberties of each individual citizen any more. Few seem to care about the injustices inflicted upon others, as long as it doesn't directly affect them. "There but for the grace of God" seems an antiquated expression now, especially among those who consider themselves religious. Civil liberties are crucial to the survival of any free society. From my quiet corner of the internet, here's a toast to civil libertarians.
We've become all too willing to grant police, judges and prosecutors the kind of power that no human being should have. "Power corrupts," as the classic nineteenth century civil libertarian Lord Acton noted. Every week, we can see new examples, on You Tube and elsewhere, of police officers caught on video tape blatantly abusing their authority. Where are the so-called "liberal" politicians speaking out about this obvious problem? Is anyone, even Reps. Paul or Kucinich, demanding more oversight and accountability for law enforcement officers?
The simple fact is we have too many laws and too many Americans in prison. The answer is not to make it easier to imprison more of them, for longer periods of time, for things that were formerly legal. The drug "war" has been a monstrous failure. The average citizen has little awareness of and less respect for the Bill of Rights than ever before. For a country that boasts constantly about our affinity for "rugged individualism," we place a depressingly unimportant value on individual rights. The Thought Police that Orwell warned us about are just around the corner, and more citizens each day wouldn't object in the least to their presence.
Classic liberalism is all but dead in American politics. The term "liberal" now describes a hack career politician who is devoted to mouthing empty, bureaucratic rhetoric to a few special interest groups. No one fights for the civil liberties of each individual citizen any more. Few seem to care about the injustices inflicted upon others, as long as it doesn't directly affect them. "There but for the grace of God" seems an antiquated expression now, especially among those who consider themselves religious. Civil liberties are crucial to the survival of any free society. From my quiet corner of the internet, here's a toast to civil libertarians.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Random Rants
Why can't they invent a vacuum cleaner that works? How can a machine have the power to suck up a sock but not be able to suck up a piece of lint or dog hair?
Why do they make elastic waist pants for boys and girls, normal sized women and obese men and women, but not normal sized men?
Why do so many drivers now dart out recklessly onto a road, only to drive well below the speed limit once they do so? What was the hurry- so they could slow everyone down?
Why is it against the law to ride a bicycle or jog on a sidewalk? What kind of sense does it make to put joggers and bicyclists into the flow of traffic? Weren't we all taught, at one time, not to run or ride our bikes in the street?
Why does Social Security tax only the first $100,000 of income? Isn't this backwards logic?
If it's illegal to share music files with others, is it illegal to let someone else listen to a CD you bought? Shouldn't they have to pay to listen, using this logic? Were all those in my generation who borrowed each other's LP records and tape recorded them, which was just about everyone, also guilty of theft?
Is there any "bumper to bumper" car warranty that actually covers everything between the bumpers?
Why doesn't the Disney Channel- or even Toon Disney- ever show the old Disney cartoons?
Why do people insist on saying "the exception proves the rule," when it does exactly the opposite?
What is there to like about non-alcoholic beer?
Why do they make elastic waist pants for boys and girls, normal sized women and obese men and women, but not normal sized men?
Why do so many drivers now dart out recklessly onto a road, only to drive well below the speed limit once they do so? What was the hurry- so they could slow everyone down?
Why is it against the law to ride a bicycle or jog on a sidewalk? What kind of sense does it make to put joggers and bicyclists into the flow of traffic? Weren't we all taught, at one time, not to run or ride our bikes in the street?
Why does Social Security tax only the first $100,000 of income? Isn't this backwards logic?
If it's illegal to share music files with others, is it illegal to let someone else listen to a CD you bought? Shouldn't they have to pay to listen, using this logic? Were all those in my generation who borrowed each other's LP records and tape recorded them, which was just about everyone, also guilty of theft?
Is there any "bumper to bumper" car warranty that actually covers everything between the bumpers?
Why doesn't the Disney Channel- or even Toon Disney- ever show the old Disney cartoons?
Why do people insist on saying "the exception proves the rule," when it does exactly the opposite?
What is there to like about non-alcoholic beer?
Saturday, February 28, 2009
My JFK Assassination Obsession, Pt. 1
One of the first things that anyone should know about me is that I'm totally obsessed by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. It all started when I read an article in Penthouse magazine circa 1974, by George O'Toole, entitled "Lee Harvey Oswald Was Innocent." Yes, I was one of those who actually read the articles. I'd always believed there was more to the assassination than simply a lone nut, but once I started examining the case in depth, I couldn't stop. One assassination book after another fell in my path, as I hungrily gobbled up all that minutiae like a heroin addict. In due course, I became an expert on the issue, and never hesitated to ramble on incessantly about the subject to family, friends and co-workers.
I was a teenaged volunteer for prominent Warren Report critic (and author of one of the seminal works on the assassination, Rush To Judgment) Mark Lane's lobbying group The Citizens Committee of Inquiry. I was in his Washington, D.C. office, when then popular young comedian Freddie Prinze called from Hollywood and reiterated to Lane his strong desire to hold a telethon in order to raise funds for a new investigation. If I hadn't been there that day, I'd have never connected Prinze to the assassination, or been suspicious when he allegedly killed himself a few months later. When a t.v. movie about Prinze's final days subsequently aired, without a single mention of the Kennedy assassination, I knew better.
The sad fact is that the crime of the twentieth century was never investigated. Not at the time, by any of the authorities who were tasked with that responsibility. Not by any mainstream media outlet, then or now. Not by the House Assassinations Committee, when groups like the one I was affiliated with finally prodded a very reluctant Congress to reopen the case. If it hadn't been for courageous private citizens like Lane, Harold Weisberg, Vincent Salandria, Mary Ferrell, Sylvia Meagher, David Lifton, Penn Jones, Shirley Martin and many others, along with a willingness, at least at that time, on the part of large publishers to publish their research, there would be a lot less of us still crying out in the wildnerness all these years later. We can also thank director Oliver Stone, whose film JFK brought down the wrath of the establishment upon him.
If you look at film and photographs taken immediately after the shooting, you will notice one constant; virtually all attention, from spectators and police alike, centered upon the infamous Grassy Knoll area, and not the Texas School Book Depository building, where Lee Harvey Oswald had supposedly been firing from the sixth floor window. As the early critics pointed out, the majority of witnesses would testify that shots came from the knoll/railroad tracks area, and not the TSBD. There were two extremely curious witnesses front and center in Dealey Plaza, close to the limousine at the time shots were fired. The first, known as The Umbrella Man, had an open umbrella on a sunny day and appeared to pump it up and down as the motorcade passed him. The other became dubbed The Babushka Lady, so called because of the Russian style scarf on her head. She can be seen filming the assassination, on the other side of Elm Street from Abraham Zapruder, in his film and others taken that day. Her vantage point offered an unparalleled view of the knoll, pickett fence and railroad tracks. Believe it or not, the authorities "investigating" this crime never identified either person. In fact, they never looked for them. They only became publicly known a few years later, when the first critical books about the case started appearing in print. No honest investigation would ignore such witnesses; they were two of the closest to the limousine at the time JFK was shot. One of them was filming at extremely close range.
Most people have heard about the "magic bullet" theory, which was dreamed up by Warren Commission lawyer Arlen Specter, now a U.S. Senator but then a young assistant counsel. This bullet supposedly caused seven wounds in JFK and Texas Governor John Connally, who was seated in front of him in the limousine. I've held the bullet in my hands, at the National Archives many years ago, and it is in almost perfect condition. There is no discernable damage to this bullet that supposedly shattered a human wrist, during its fanciful flight. The holes in JFK's coat and shirt are both located approximately 5-6 inches below the shoulder, which matches exactly the location noted by Admiral George Burkley (JFK's personal physician, who was also not called as a witness during the Warren Commission "investigation") on the president's death certificate as well as the spot marked on the original autopsy face sheet. Remember, the official story is that this bullet was fired from a sixth floor window behind the limousine, entered JFK's neck and exited from his throat. Obviously, a ten year old child can look at this evidence for a few moments and see that no bullet from above could enter 5-6 inches down on a person's back, hit nothing, yet exit from his throat. In recent years, lone assassin theorists like Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi have promoted a "bunched up coat" theory to explain the holes in JFK's clothing. Needless to say, Kennedy was an immaculated dressed man, with expensive suits tailored to his frame. His coat would not have ever ridden up 5-6 inches on his back, and his shirt is not likely to have ridden up the same distance, to the extent that they matched up exactly. This theory is just as ridiculous as the "magic" bullet one. There also has to be a new absurd theory devised to explain why Admiral Burkley, on the death certificate, and Dr. Boswell, on the autopsy face sheet, noted the back wound in the precise area where the bullet holes in JFK's clothing are. The evidence is overwhelming that the back wound was too low for either of these impossible theories to work.
More to come in future blogs....
I was a teenaged volunteer for prominent Warren Report critic (and author of one of the seminal works on the assassination, Rush To Judgment) Mark Lane's lobbying group The Citizens Committee of Inquiry. I was in his Washington, D.C. office, when then popular young comedian Freddie Prinze called from Hollywood and reiterated to Lane his strong desire to hold a telethon in order to raise funds for a new investigation. If I hadn't been there that day, I'd have never connected Prinze to the assassination, or been suspicious when he allegedly killed himself a few months later. When a t.v. movie about Prinze's final days subsequently aired, without a single mention of the Kennedy assassination, I knew better.
The sad fact is that the crime of the twentieth century was never investigated. Not at the time, by any of the authorities who were tasked with that responsibility. Not by any mainstream media outlet, then or now. Not by the House Assassinations Committee, when groups like the one I was affiliated with finally prodded a very reluctant Congress to reopen the case. If it hadn't been for courageous private citizens like Lane, Harold Weisberg, Vincent Salandria, Mary Ferrell, Sylvia Meagher, David Lifton, Penn Jones, Shirley Martin and many others, along with a willingness, at least at that time, on the part of large publishers to publish their research, there would be a lot less of us still crying out in the wildnerness all these years later. We can also thank director Oliver Stone, whose film JFK brought down the wrath of the establishment upon him.
If you look at film and photographs taken immediately after the shooting, you will notice one constant; virtually all attention, from spectators and police alike, centered upon the infamous Grassy Knoll area, and not the Texas School Book Depository building, where Lee Harvey Oswald had supposedly been firing from the sixth floor window. As the early critics pointed out, the majority of witnesses would testify that shots came from the knoll/railroad tracks area, and not the TSBD. There were two extremely curious witnesses front and center in Dealey Plaza, close to the limousine at the time shots were fired. The first, known as The Umbrella Man, had an open umbrella on a sunny day and appeared to pump it up and down as the motorcade passed him. The other became dubbed The Babushka Lady, so called because of the Russian style scarf on her head. She can be seen filming the assassination, on the other side of Elm Street from Abraham Zapruder, in his film and others taken that day. Her vantage point offered an unparalleled view of the knoll, pickett fence and railroad tracks. Believe it or not, the authorities "investigating" this crime never identified either person. In fact, they never looked for them. They only became publicly known a few years later, when the first critical books about the case started appearing in print. No honest investigation would ignore such witnesses; they were two of the closest to the limousine at the time JFK was shot. One of them was filming at extremely close range.
Most people have heard about the "magic bullet" theory, which was dreamed up by Warren Commission lawyer Arlen Specter, now a U.S. Senator but then a young assistant counsel. This bullet supposedly caused seven wounds in JFK and Texas Governor John Connally, who was seated in front of him in the limousine. I've held the bullet in my hands, at the National Archives many years ago, and it is in almost perfect condition. There is no discernable damage to this bullet that supposedly shattered a human wrist, during its fanciful flight. The holes in JFK's coat and shirt are both located approximately 5-6 inches below the shoulder, which matches exactly the location noted by Admiral George Burkley (JFK's personal physician, who was also not called as a witness during the Warren Commission "investigation") on the president's death certificate as well as the spot marked on the original autopsy face sheet. Remember, the official story is that this bullet was fired from a sixth floor window behind the limousine, entered JFK's neck and exited from his throat. Obviously, a ten year old child can look at this evidence for a few moments and see that no bullet from above could enter 5-6 inches down on a person's back, hit nothing, yet exit from his throat. In recent years, lone assassin theorists like Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi have promoted a "bunched up coat" theory to explain the holes in JFK's clothing. Needless to say, Kennedy was an immaculated dressed man, with expensive suits tailored to his frame. His coat would not have ever ridden up 5-6 inches on his back, and his shirt is not likely to have ridden up the same distance, to the extent that they matched up exactly. This theory is just as ridiculous as the "magic" bullet one. There also has to be a new absurd theory devised to explain why Admiral Burkley, on the death certificate, and Dr. Boswell, on the autopsy face sheet, noted the back wound in the precise area where the bullet holes in JFK's clothing are. The evidence is overwhelming that the back wound was too low for either of these impossible theories to work.
More to come in future blogs....
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Why I Still Love Greg Norman
Greg Norman used to be my favorite golfer. He was on the verge of superstardom when I read a few stories about him, circa 1985, and first learned what a truly nice guy he was. The rest is history.
I've always had the unfortunate power to jinx players and teams. Once I learned about Norman's incredibly polite and accomodating nature, it was all over. What put me over the top was the fact he was the first (and to date only) pro golfer to reach down for his ball in the cup without leaning on his putter, because he didn't want to leave an indentation that might effect his fellow golfers. Thus, he joined Ben Crenshaw, the Detroit Lions, the George Allen-era Los Angeles Rams, the Washington Senators and the Chicago Cubs in my pantheon of snakebitten favorites. I apologize for that. He coulda been a contender....
Greg Norman is in the news again. He's publicly called on the PGA to institute a pay cut for its players. The full story can be read here: http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=443720&publicationSubCategoryId=200
While it would have no impact on those who are suffering through these tough economic times, I think it's a beautiful, refreshing gesture. That's just what I'd expect from "The Shark."
I've always had the unfortunate power to jinx players and teams. Once I learned about Norman's incredibly polite and accomodating nature, it was all over. What put me over the top was the fact he was the first (and to date only) pro golfer to reach down for his ball in the cup without leaning on his putter, because he didn't want to leave an indentation that might effect his fellow golfers. Thus, he joined Ben Crenshaw, the Detroit Lions, the George Allen-era Los Angeles Rams, the Washington Senators and the Chicago Cubs in my pantheon of snakebitten favorites. I apologize for that. He coulda been a contender....
Greg Norman is in the news again. He's publicly called on the PGA to institute a pay cut for its players. The full story can be read here: http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=443720&publicationSubCategoryId=200
While it would have no impact on those who are suffering through these tough economic times, I think it's a beautiful, refreshing gesture. That's just what I'd expect from "The Shark."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)