“Some men see things as they are and say, ‘Why?’ I dream things that never were and say,’Why not?’”
Robert Kennedy.

The Clouds Of Auckland, New Zealand!

Introduction by AfterAmerica

Are you like me? Sometimes I wake up to the sweet smell of Jasmine and for a brief moment I think I am back living in Southern California. There may be the light breeze and it smells and feels  like the Santa Ana Winds I remember so well from time to time. A few more moments and I jump out of bed and realize I am over 8,000 Miles from the home of my birth.

I’ve done some soul searching this Christmas season wondering why this all happened. Was it 911? Was it JFK being shot? Was the the criminals running Washington DC that are an extension of the previous administration. Any who tells you that “everything is the same….” is out of their mind. So let’s get back to the real message of this post.

Who Will Save America?

My Epiphany

By Paul Craig

A number of readers have asked me when did I undergo my epiphany, abandon right-wing Reaganism and become an apostle of truth and justice.

I appreciate the friendly sentiment, but there is a great deal of misconception in the question.

When I saw that the neoconservative response to 9/11 was to turn a war against stateless terrorism into military attacks on Muslim states, I realized that the Bush administration was committing a strategic blunder with open-ended disastrous consequences for the US that, in the end, would destroy Bush, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement.

What does the US Military think?

My warning was not prompted by an effort to save Bush’s bacon. I have never been any party’s political or ideological servant. I used my positions in the congressional staff and the Reagan administration to change the economic policy of the United States. In my efforts, I found more allies among influential Democrats, such as Senate Finance Committee Chairman Russell Long, Joint Economic Committee Chairman Lloyd Bentsen and my Georgia Tech fraternity brother Sam Nunn, than I did among traditional Republicans who were only concerned about the budget deficit.

My goals were to reverse the Keynesian policy mix that caused worsening “Phillips curve” trade-offs between employment and inflation and to cure the stagflation that destroyed Jimmy Carter’s presidency. No one has seen a “Phillips curve” trade-off or experienced stagflation since the supply-side policy was implemented. (These gains are now being eroded by the labor arbitrage that is replacing American workers with foreign ones. In January 2004 I teamed up with Democratic Senator Charles Schumer in the New York Times and at a Brookings Institution conference in a joint effort to call attention to the erosion of the US economy and Americans’ job prospects by outsourcing.)

The supply-side policy used reductions in the marginal rate of taxation on additional income to create incentives to expand production so that consumer demand would result in increased real output instead of higher prices. No doubt, the rich benefitted, but ordinary people were no longer faced simultaneously with rising inflation and lost jobs. Employment expanded for the remainder of the century without having to pay for it with high and rising rates of inflation. Don’t ever forget that Reagan was elected and re-elected by blue collar Democrats.

President Ronald Reagan

The left-wing’s demonization of Ronald Reagan owes much to the Republican Establishment. The Republican Establishment regarded Reagan as a threat to its hegemony over the party. They saw Jack Kemp the same way. Kemp, a professional football star quarterback, represented an essentially Democratic district. Kemp was aggressive in challenging Republican orthodoxy. Both Reagan and Kemp spoke to ordinary people. As a high official in the Reagan administration, I was battered by the Republican Establishment, which wanted enough Reagan success so as not to jeopardize the party’s “lock on the presidency” but enough failure so as to block the succession to another outsider. Anyone who reads my book, The Supply-Side Revolution (Harvard University Press, 1984) will see what the real issues were.

If I had time to research my writings over the past 30 years, I could find examples of partisan articles in behalf of Republicans and against Democrats. However, political partisanship is not the corpus of my writings. I had a 16-year stint as Business Week’s first outside columnist, despite hostility within the magazine and from the editor’s New York social set, because the editor regarded me as the most trenchant critic of the George H.W. Bush administration in the business. The White House felt the same way and lobbied to have me removed from the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Earlier when I resigned from the Reagan administration to accept appointment to the new chair, CSIS was part of Georgetown University. The University’s liberal president, Timothy Healy, objected to having anyone from the Reagan administration in a chair affiliated with Georgetown University. CSIS had to defuse the situation by appointing a distinguished panel of scholars from outside universities, including Harvard, to ratify my appointment.

I can truly say that at one time or the other both sides have tried to shut me down. I have experienced the same from “free thinking” libertarians, who are free thinking only inside their own box.

In Reagan’s time we did not recognize that neoconservatives had a Jacobin frame of mind. Perhaps we were not paying close enough attention. We saw neoconservatives as former left-wingers who had realized that the Soviet Union might be a threat after all. We regarded them as allies against Henry Kissinger’s inclination to reach an unfavorable accommodation with the Soviet Union. Kissinger thought, or was believed to think, that Americans had no stomach for a drawn-out contest and that he needed to strike a deal before the Soviets staked the future on a lack of American resolution.

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights Are Under Attack!

Reagan was certainly no neoconservative. He went along with some of their schemes, but when neoconservatives went too far, he fired them. George W. Bush promotes them. The left-wing might object that the offending neocons in the Reagan administration were later pardoned, but there was sincere objection to criminalizing what was seen, rightly or wrongly, as stalwartness in standing up to communism.

Neoconservatives were disappointed with Reagan. Reagan’s goal was to END the cold war, not to WIN it. He made common purpose with Gorbachev and ENDED the cold war. It is the new Jacobins, the neoconservatives, who have exploited this victory by taking military bases to Russian borders.

I have always objected to injustice. My writings about prosecutorial abuse have put me at odds with “law and order conservatives.” I have written extensively about wrongful convictions, both of the rich and famous and the poor and unknown. My thirty-odd columns on the frame-up of 26 innocent people in the Wenatchee, Washington, child sex abuse witch hunt played a role in the eventual overturning of the wrongful convictions.

My book, with Lawrence Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, details the erosion of the legal rights that make law a shield of the innocent instead of a weapon in the hands of government. Without the protection of law, rich and poor alike are at the mercy of government. In their hatred of “the rich,” the left-wing overlooks that in the 20th century the rich were the class most persecuted by government. The class genocide of the 20th century is the greatest genocide in history.

Protecting Our Rights While "Taking Yours!"

Americans have forgotten what it takes to remain free. Instead, every ideology, every group is determined to use government to advance its agenda. As the government’s power grows, the people are eclipsed.

We have reached a point where the Bush administration is determined to totally eclipse the people. Bewitched by neoconservatives and lustful for power, the Bush administration and the Republican Party are aligning themselves firmly against the American people. Their first victims, of course, were the true conservatives. Having eliminated internal opposition, the Bush administration is now using blackmail obtained through illegal spying on American citizens to silence the media and the opposition party.

Before flinching at my assertion of blackmail, ask yourself why President Bush refuses to obey the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The purpose of the FISA court is to ensure that administrations do not spy for partisan political reasons. The warrant requirement is to ensure that a panel of independent federal judges hears a legitimate reason for the spying, thus protecting a president from the temptation to abuse the powers of government. The only reason for the Bush administration to evade the court is that the Bush administration had no legitimate reasons for its spying. This should be obvious even to a naif.

The United States is undergoing a coup against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, civil liberties, and democracy itself. The “liberal press” has been co-opted. As everyone must know by now, the New York Times has totally failed its First Amendment obligations, allowing Judith Miller to make war propaganda for the Bush administration, suppressing for an entire year the news that the Bush administration was illegally spying on American citizens, and denying coverage to Al Gore’s speech that challenged the criminal deeds of the Bush administration.

The TV networks mimic Fox News’ faux patriotism. Anyone who depends on print, TV, or right-wing talk radio media is totally misinformed. The Bush administration has achieved a de facto Ministry of Propaganda.

The years of illegal spying have given the Bush administration power over the media and the opposition. Journalists and Democratic politicians don’t want to have their adulterous affairs broadcast over television or to see their favorite online porn sites revealed in headlines in the local press with their names attached. Only people willing to risk such disclosures can stand up for the country.

Homeland Security and the Patriot Act are not our protectors. They undermine our protection by trashing the Constitution and the civil liberties it guarantees. Those with a tyrannical turn of mind have always used fear and hysteria to overcome obstacles to their power and to gain new means of silencing opposition.

Consider the no-fly list. This list has no purpose whatsoever but to harass and disrupt the livelihoods of Bush’s critics. If a known terrorist were to show up at check-in, he would be arrested and taken into custody, not told that he could not fly. What sense does it make to tell someone who is not subject to arrest and who has cleared screening that he or she cannot fly? How is this person any more dangerous than any other passenger?

If Senator Ted Kennedy, a famous senator with two martyred brothers, can be put on a no-fly list, as he was for several weeks, anyone can be put on the list. The list has no accountability. People on the list cannot even find out why they are on the list. There is no recourse, no procedure for correcting mistakes.

I am certain that there are more Bush critics on the list than there are terrorists. According to reports, the list now comprises 80,000 names! This number must greatly dwarf the total number of terrorists in the world and certainly the number of known terrorists.

How long before members of the opposition party, should there be one, find that they cannot return to Washington for important votes, because they have been placed on the no-fly list? What oversight does Congress or a panel of federal judges exercise over the list to make sure there are valid reasons for placing people on the list?

If the government can have a no-fly list, it can have a no-drive list. The Iraqi resistance has demonstrated the destructive potential of car bombs. If we are to believe the government’s story about the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City, Timothy McVeigh showed that a rental truck bomb could destroy a large office building. Indeed, what is to prevent the government from having a list of people who are not allowed to leave their homes? If the Bush administration can continue its policy of picking up people anywhere in the world and detaining them indefinitely without having to show any evidence for their detention, it can do whatever it wishes.

Many readers have told me, some gleefully, that I will be placed on the no-fly list along with all other outspoken critics of the growth in unaccountable executive power and war based on lies and deception. It is just a matter of time. Unchecked, unaccountable power grows more audacious by the day. As one reader recently wrote, “when the president of the United States can openly brag about being a felon, without fear of the consequences, the game is all but over.”

Congress and the media have no fight in them, and neither, apparently, do the American people. Considering the feebleness of the opposition, perhaps the best strategy is for the opposition to shut up, not merely for our own safety but, more importantly, to remove any impediments to Bush administration self-destruction. The sooner the Bush administration realizes its goals of attacking Iran, Syria, and the Shia militias in Lebanon, the more likely the administration will collapse in the maelstrom before it achieves a viable police state. Hamas’ victory in the recent Palestinian elections indicates that Muslim outrage over further US aggression in the Middle East has the potential to produce uprisings in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Not even Karl Rove and Fox “News” could spin Bush out of the catastrophe.

Perhaps we should go further and join the neocon chorus, urging on invasions of Iran and Syria and sending in the Marines to disarm Hizbullah in Lebanon. Not even plots of the German High Command could get rid of Hitler, but when Hitler marched German armies into Russia he destroyed himself. If Iraq hasn’t beat the hubris out of what Gordon Prather aptly terms the “neo-crazies,” US military adventures against Iran and Hizbullah will teach humility to the neo-crazies.

Many patriotic readers have written to me expressing their frustration that fact and common sense cannot gain a toehold in a debate guided by hysteria and disinformation. Other readers write that 9/11 shields Bush from accountability, They challenge me to explain why three World Trade Center buildings on one day collapsed into their own footprints at free fall speed, an event outside the laws of physics except under conditions of controlled demolition. They insist that there is no stopping war and a police state as long as the government’s story on 9/11 remains unchallenged.

They could be right. There are not many editors eager for writers to explore the glaring defects of the 9/11 Commission Report. One would think that if the report could stand analysis, there would not be a taboo against calling attention to the inadequacy of its explanations. We know the government lied about Iraqi WMD, but we believe the government told the truth about 9/11.

Debate is dead in America for two reasons: One is that the media concentration permitted in the 1990s has put news and opinion in the hands of a few corporate executives who do not dare risk their broadcasting licenses by getting on the wrong side of government, or their advertising revenues by becoming “controversial.” The media follows a safe line and purveys only politically correct information. The other reason is that Americans today are no longer enthralled by debate. They just want to hear what they want to hear. The right-wing, left-wing, and libertarians alike preach to the faithful. Democracy cannot succeed when there is no debate.

Americans need to understand that many interests are using the “war on terror” to achieve their agendas. The Federalist Society is using the “war on terror” to achieve its agenda of concentrating power in the executive and packing the Supreme Court to this effect. The neocons are using the war to achieve their agenda of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Police agencies are using the war to remove constraints on their powers and to make themselves less accountable. Republicans are using the war to achieve one-party rule–theirs. The Bush administration is using the war to avoid accountability and evade constraints on executive powers. Arms industries, or what President Eisenhower called the “military-industrial complex,” are using the war to fatten profits. Terrorism experts are using the war to gain visibility. Security firms are using it to gain customers. Readers can add to this list at will. The lack of debate gives carte blanche to these agendas.

One certainty prevails. Bush is committing America to a path of violence and coercion, and he is getting away with it.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

According to the San Jose Mercury News, Panoche Valley is a treeless expanse in central California with 90 percent of the solar intensity of the Mojave Desert.

The Audobon Society is complain Panoche Valley is not appropriate for a solar farm. (Photo Mercury News)

Several endangered species make their homes there: the San Joaquin fox, the blunt-nose leopard lizard.  One hundred and thirty species of birds come and go.

The unusual wildlife may not make waterless valley the ideal spot for one of the world’s largest solar farms. But the available sunshine does. So where does the 420 MW project – about 60 miles south of Silicon Valley – stand? It is opposed by the Audubon Society, which complains the environmental impact of large-scale developments isn’t known.

Earlier this week, the environmentally conscious Senator Dianne Feinstein proposed a bill creating two national monuments in the Mojave Desert. The legislation, if adopted, will have a similar squelching affect on the development of alternative energy. It will effectively chase a dozen planned solar and wind farms from the parch, sunshine intensive landscape.

NIMBYism is on the rise against alternative energy at a time when the nation needs to be rushing toward non-fossil-fuel-based energy. The danger is that this not-in-my-backyard sentiment will make renewable energy targets hard to hit and put American competitiveness at a disadvantage through continued reliance on oil and traditional energy sources.

The list of projects under attack is lengthening. In West Virginia, the endangered species act was wielded to squash a wind farm when environmentalists feared the habitat of the Indiana bat would be encroached.

Proposed legislation will chase a dozen proposed wind and solar plants from the Mojave Desert

In Michigan, neighbors began howling when a massive wind farm was planned for Lake Michigan. The gargantuan 1 GW farm is proposed for a 100-square-mile tract of the lake, with some turbines only a few miles from shore.

The consistently strong winds of the Great Lakes make them one of the nation’s top sources of renewable energy. However, according to the Detroit Free Press, residents complained that the 100 turbines would create an eyesore and chase away tourists.

With the growing grassroots rejection of renewable energy, the nation will have a harder time playing its part in the fight against global warming. Already environmental leaders such as Robert Kennedy have spoken up, complaining the Mojave Desert shouldn’t be barred from development without a thorough environmental review.

But many battles will be fought at the state and local level. There, compromises are probably going to need to be made. After all, the alternative is more coal and natural-gas fired power plants – and more imported oil.

Only the oil companies are in favor of that.

The year 1960 was a monumental one during which this country elected John Kennedy as its president.   But the book 1960 – LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon: The Epic Campaign That Forged Three Presidencies illustrates once again that more is less.   Instead of writing a book about President Kennedy, Vice President Johnson or the losing presidential candidate Nixon, David Pietrusza attempts to cover them all at once; as a result more is lost than gained.

One basic problem is that the backgrounds and life events of these three separate large characters in U.S. history (and modern politics) are covered rapidly.   For the reader who has already read full biographies of JFK, LBJ and Richard Nixon, far too much is missed or condensed down to Reader’s Digest style summaries.   On the flip side, the reader who has never read in depth about these figures will likely be unable to comprehend some of what he/she is reading due to the very facts and circumstances that are left out.

I’ll provide an example of the latter problem.   One of the events that made Nixon a major, but young, political figure in the late 1050’s was his involvement in investigating Alger Hiss.   That is mentioned on just two pages in 1960 and what’s missing is an explanation of the key evidence found against Hiss that Nixon relied upon in alleging that Hiss was a Communist and/or a spy (notwithstanding that Hiss worked in the U.S. State Department for Franklin D. Roosevelt and was once the Secretary-General of the United Nations).   There’s no explanation here of the microfilm found in a pumpkin or the typewriter that was supposedly found to have been used by Hiss to commit a forgery.   For the person who is not familiar with Nixon, it will seem that he is credited for “breaking” Hiss but it will be unclear as to exactly why.   Nixon’s role as a prosecutor is hazy without a sufficient review of the evidence he presented against Hiss.

There’s another issue.   The book jacket states:  “Like The Making of the President, 1960 by Theodore White – yet far more revealing than Kennedy camp insider White could ever be…  (it) has the narrative energy and suspenseful turns and twists of a headlong thriller.   Yet it’s all true.”   Well, we actually don’t know today what is and is not true about what is reported as fact in 1960.   For example, there’s an entire chapter – a somewhat silly one – about Kennedy’s relationships with women (“They were a dime a dozen”); and statements about his father and brother Robert.   But these events happened so long ago that we do not, in fact, know what happened and what was alleged or was the product of someone’s imagination.

It’s also not clear what the impact of this information is supposed to be…  Enough said.   But, for me, the biggest fault with 1960 is that I never felt I was getting to know any of the three figures as human beings.   By contrast, Pietrusza shows some surprising skills by including some write-ups of peripheral figures that come off as much more real and human – individuals with true strengths and flaws.   Hubert Humphrey and Nelson Rockefeller are two of the figures who come to life in 1960 in a way that the three lead subjects do not.

Finally, this is just not the suspenseful thriller touted on the book jacket.   For an excellent example of a non-fiction political/modern history book that does read like a Capitol thriller, the interested reader can turn to By His Own Rules: The Ambitions, Successes and Ultimate Failures of Donald Rumsfeld by Bradley Graham.   Rules is an 832-page roller coaster ride that is never dull.   By comparison, 1960 is a 417-page survey that tries to cover the lives of three very large figures at one selected point in U.S. history.   It comes off as simultaneously both too big (focusing on three pivotal lives rather than one) and too small (leaving out too many key details while including a bit too much gossip).   As a result, it simply feels flat in the reading…   But maybe Pietrusza will produce a comprehensive biography of Hubert Horatio Humphrey or Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller; either would – no doubt – be quite interesting.

This book was purchased by the reviewer.

A review of 1960 – LBJ vs. JFK vs. Nixon: The Epic Campaign That Forged Three Presidents by David Pietrusza.

Robert Kennedy and John F. Kennedy in 1962

It’s Time To Remember Who We Are As Americans!

Presidents are not destined to be loved. Virtue does not excite admiration. There is no better way for a President to attract a growing number of enemies than to express himself too explicitly on the multitude of subjects with which he is concerned. It is the little things that divide a nation.

For Kennedy, “power without justice is meaningless.” But politics is not concerned with morality or fine sentiments, and it was for his cold logic and his sincerity that Kennedy was contested, and even detested, throughout his lifetime. Resentment surrounded him on all sides. Not only the hate of the Far Right, the big businessmen, the oilmen or the military; not only the fanaticism of the extremists of the John Birch Society or the Ku Klux Klan. Organizations and corporations with little in common, be they financial, ideological, or simply mediocre or faint-hearted, joined in a common front against the invader. His adversaries included doctors and lawyers, churchmen and speculators, the American Legion, government officials, professional diplomats, and trade unionists.⁽¹⁾ To maintain the balance, the Far Right even joined forces with the utopian left to oppose him. The civil rights President, this intelligent and compassionate President, even counted Negroes, poor people, and intellectuals among his enemies.

Many anguished intellectuals felt that he had taken advantage of his position to seduce their brothers into betraying their vocation. For them, the professors from Harvard were putty in the hands of the professional politicians. They saw the President’s interest in philosophy and the arts as a ruse designed to neutralize their opposition by absorbing it. They thought it a shame to exchange first-class intellectuals like those in the vanguard of the New Frontier for second-class politicians, and for them a politician could only be second-class. They also claimed that Kennedy, like Carl Sandburg, was too progressive for the United States. Others, far above in their ivory towers, considered that the respect of the intellectual had nothing to do with the tragic problems of the times, the practical aspects of which very often eluded them. As for the liberal intellectuals, they criticized Kennedy for not launching an ideological crusade. They found the President too timid. They would have liked to see more lost causes, more big deficits, more lofty designs. They wanted him to eliminate the conservatives. The fact that Kennedy became almost as popular as Eisenhower reinforced their suspicions. They were unable to accept the idea of a popular President. For them, his popularity was enough to disqualify him as a intellectual or a liberal.

The utopian left went even further. It thought that the President should adopt a policy of strict neutrality in the Cold War. It felt that a really liberal President should follow in the footsteps of Switzerland, Sweden, or even India. It was totally opposed to nuclear dissuasion, be it preventive or coercive, and its creed was “better Red than dead.” The lowliest of the intellectuals accused Kennedy of “subversion, sabotage, corruption, blackmail and treason.” Revilo P. Oliver⁽²⁾ was later to write in The Conspiracy: “As long as there are Americans, he will be remembered with disgust. If the United States is saved by the desperate efforts of her patriots, a grand and glorious future can be ours. But we shall never forget how close we came to total destruction in the year 1963.”

Had Kennedy set out to “destroy” the United States when, on April 27, 1961, he expounded his ideas on government service?

“No responsibility of government is more fundamental than the responsibility of maintaining the highest standards of ethical behavior by those who conduct the public business. There can be no dissent from the principle that all officials must act with unwavering integrity, absolute impartiality and complete devotion to the public interest . . .

“Of course, public officials are not a group apart. They inevitably reflect the moral tone of the society in which they live. And if that moral tone is injured — by fixed athletic contests or television quiz shows — by widespread business conspiracies to fix prices — by collusion of businessmen and unions with organized crime — by cheating on expense accounts, by the ignoring of traffic laws, or by petty tax evasion — then the conduct of our government must be affected. Inevitably, the moral standards of a society influence the conduct of all who live within it -the governed and those who govern.

The ultimate answer to ethical problems in government is honest people in a good ethical environment. No web of statute or regulation, however intricately conceived, can hope to deal with the myriad possible challenges to a man’s integrity or his devotion to the public interest. Nevertheless formal regulation is required — regulation which can lay down clear guidelines of policy, punish venality and double-dealing, and set a general ethical tone for the conduct of public business.”

At the end of his speech, the President declared that he was issuing an order:

a) prohibiting federal employees from accepting gifts;

b) prohibiting federal employees from using information not available — to the public for private gain;

c) prohibiting federal employees from using their authority to induce others to provide them with things of value;

d) prohibiting federal employees from accepting outside employment when such employment was considered “incompatible” with their government service.

He added that he intended to issue more detailed regulations concerning the conduct of Presidential appointees. Finally, he announced that a member of the Cabinet would be designated to coordinate all questions concerning morality in government.

Obviously, this exordium was greeted with little enthusiasm by certain federal employees. Still, they had the moral satisfaction of rereading what Kennedy had already said about them on January 30, 1961:

“I have pledged myself and my colleagues in the Cabinet to a continuous encouragement of initiative, responsibility and energy in serving the public interest. Let every public servant know, whether his post is high or low, that a man’s rank and reputation in this Administration will be determined by the size of the job he does, and not by the size of his staff, his office or his budget. Let it be clear that this Administration recognizes the value of dissent and daring — that we greet healthy controversy as the hallmark of healthy change. Let the public service be a proud and lively career. And let every man and woman who works in any area of our national government, in any branch, at any level, be able to say with pride and with honor in future years: ‘I served the United States government in that hour of our nation’s need.’”

The “initiative,” the “sense of responsibility” and the “energy” of the State Department became one of the President’s immediate preoccupations when he took office. “Foggy Bottom” was an enigma to Kennedy. “The State Department is a bowl of jelly full of people who are constantly smiling,” he told Hugh Sidey of Time. He felt that no one really ran it, and his directives and remonstrances to Dean Rusk had little effect. The only solution was a thorough-going reorganization, and had the White House had the opportunity, it would have undertaken the job. Instead, the President’s assistants confined themselves to acid comments like the following: “This is only the latest and worst in a long number of drafts sent here for Presidential signature. Most of the time it does not matter, I suppose, if the prose is tired, the thinking banal and the syntax bureaucratic, and occasionally when it does matter, State’s drafts are very good. But sometimes, as in this case, they are not.”

Kennedy and his advisers wanted a complete renovation of American foreign policy — not only of its style and its methods, but also of its orientation. The old hands at State considered this activist crusade as totally naive. The “striped-pants set” at Foggy Bottom had little confidence in this Platonic empire in modem dress. They regarded the New Frontier as closer to illusion than to hope. They believed that the wisdom of a policy is less important than its continuity, and that the mark of an amateur diplomat is his inability, or his refusal, to see that any change in policy, even for the better, implies a recognition of past error and is consequently detrimental to the national prestige. The professional diplomat thrives on routine and avoids making waves. He replaces a forceful expression with a milder phrase. He dissimulates the realities of this “seething planet of revolutionary violence, ferocity and hate” with euphemisms like “this great struggle for freedom,” the “free world,” and “national sovereignty.”⁽³⁾

Dean Rusk is certainly a good man, but as Secretary of State he lacked purpose. He bitterly resented the impertinent and welcome interference of the White House in the affairs of the Department of State. Like most of his subordinates, he felt that the capacity of words, phrases and style to dominate the political or economic realities of the modern world should never be underestimated — that a press conference is no substitute for foreign policy.

President Kennedy wanted to be his own Secretary of State. He had always been interested in foreign affairs, and if he didn’t always know where he would end up, at least he always knew where he was heading. At the White House, he was surrounded by a team of advisers known as the “Little White House,” the pillars of which were McGeorge Bundy and Robert Kennedy.⁽⁴⁾ A British liberal magazine, the New Statesman, wrote in 1963: “America has not one Secretary of State but half a dozen,” and added, “American diplomacy as a result has the improvised flavor of a touch football game on the White House lawn.” The author might as well have been talking about United States foreign policy in the pre-and post-Kennedy eras. American diplomacy has never been equal to the power of the United States and its international objectives.

NoetitTaoism™ has countless positive connections with all wells of wisdom, including the Kabbalah, which is the deeper aspect of the teachings of the Torah. In the portion of The Zohar, known as Vayigash, for example, there is a teaching that has been withheld from many Jews and most Christians until recent years, a revealing of the fact that there are three gradations of the human “soul”, named in that text: Ruach, Nefesh, and Neshamah. This is knowledge thousands of years old, by the way. 

The three grades of the human soul are direct extensions—some would say “reflections”—of the three highest dimensions of Omniverse, the three dimensions of Cosmic Consciousness. We prefer to say “extensions” because the “below” that is the human being is not separate from the above that is religiously called “God.” When a person receives a true vision from “above,” it is in no way filtered, which is why true “prophecy”—precise foresight—is not an interpretation or divinatory prediction. Divination is, in effect, a looking upwards through the language of Nature in an attempt to decode the continuous transmissions, whereas prophecy is the (often wordless and unsolicited) sharing of Consciousness from above. 

In the connection of the three aspects of the human soul and the three dimensions of the pure creative Mass Mind, the constant challenge for every truly inspired artist and scientist, as well as every other sort of worthy shepherd of humankind, is to desire to be a channel not only for the self—not even mostly for the self. The ego is an offshoot of the higher vine, and its greatest role is to receive inspiration for the service of self plus others—to receive in order to also give, to share. Then we can say, as Jesus of Nazareth said: “I and the Father are One, “Who has seen me, has seen the Father,” “It is the Father within me who does the work,”  “I (like you, my fellow humans) am the light of the world,” and other statements pointing to the same eternal truth. To many this post will sound blasphemous, but study your Bible again before attacking this plain fact. 

When JFK said, “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country;” when MLK said, “I have a dream;” when RFK said, “Some people see things as they are and ask why; I see things as they can be and ask why not?” it was not the first times those words were spoken. Those quotes are not original. Nor should they be the last time we hear them spoken to the masses of people who are in such great need today, suffering forms of oppression that are as old as the first inspired scripture ever scrawled on parchment. NoetiTaoism™ asks: How much longer?

Humility is the quality or state of being humble; to be humble means to rank low in hierarchy or scale. This definition best describes the willingness of members of the Kennedy clan to ignore the ranking in hierarchy associated with the wealth, glamour and photogenic quality of a privileged family to opt for service to others. Whether it’s the careers of the Kennedy brothers John, Robert and Edward serving in the executive and legislative branches of government fighting injustice in behalf of the less fortunate, or their sisters Eunice and Jean reaching out nationally and internationally to those with mental disabilities (The Special Olympics and the Very Special Arts) they represent profiles in humility.

I guess they learned from their Irish Catholic background the Christian practice of service to their neighbors. They recognized their neighbors to include the poor, the elderly, the disabled, victims of discrimination and war and those denied basic human rights. They knew that the “least of our brethren” are our neighbors too. Edward Kennedy recognized that the folks he vacationed with at Martha’s Vineyard were his neighbors but also were the victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans too. Like wise Martin Luther King Jr. knew that the sanitation workers of Memphis were his neighbors. President Obama and the Congress are creating health care legislature acknowledging that those without health care are our neighbors.

To whom much is given much is expected. The Kennedy’s seem to have followed this scripture as their creed. You might not be as financially fortunate as a Kennedy but if you know of someone less fortunate than you and they have a need that’s your neighbor

So it’s the day before I start an epic journey to Copenhagen, where already thousands upon thousands of people are discussing, debating, protesting, thinking and seeking binding action on climate change. I’m heading there with the British Council, as part of their Challenge Europe programme – which aims to bring together ambitious young people who want to make a lasting impact on climate change. In my day job I work for the RSPB as a Marine Policy Officer – so clearly the environmnt and nature conservation are very close to my heart.

It’s hard to know how to feel before heading off to Copenhagen; a mixture of excitement, nervousness, an element of the unknown. What I believe the world needs are strong legally-binding targets for reducing emissions, and the important contribution that nature makes in supporting the human race in an already changing climate. A vital part of Scotland’s Climate Change Act is that it takes account of the importance of how we use our land. People don’t get very excited about looking across a peat moorland – to many it seems a bleak landscape. But the carbon-rich soils of Scotland are vital in the fight against climate change, and we should recognise their importance as carbon sinks, and incredibly important places for wildlife.

We also need to think seriously about how we measure the ’success’ of our nations. Currently this is measured as GDP or Gross Domestic Product. This is simply a measure of how much we consume – and not all those things that really matter to people, like our health, nature, our interactions with others…it’s time we changed all that. Bhutan is an exception – here is a nation that measures it’s success in ‘Gross National Happiness’!

Robert Kennedy summed it up best when he said:

“Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising…and the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play…the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages. It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

Whatever happens in Copenhagen, world leaders will be making history. They have a choice on how future generations look back on them: as those who made history for doing something exceptional, or as those that failed to act when the planet needed it most.

Robert Kennedy, Jr. calls for a stop to the blasting of Coal River Mountain and protection of nation’s clean energy resources, on first day of global climate talks in Copenhagen

Today over 300 coalfield residents and their allies rallied to stop the blasting of Coal River Mountain and to transition to a clean energy future at the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection.  Coal River Mountain, the site of a proposed wind farm if blasting can be halted, has become a line in the sand in the fight against mountaintop removal coal mining.

We listened to a couple of dozen inspirational speakers, many of whom were local people who have seen the damage of mountaintop removal coal mining firsthand. They talked about why it is so important to save Coal River Mountain, their communities and our country from the many problems associated with mountaintop removal and our addiction to coal.

“Coal River Mountain stands today as a symbol of the choice we have to make for our energy future,” said Bo Webb of the Coal River Valley, an ex-Marine and a lead organizer of today’s rally.  “We can preserve our abundant forested mountains, which offer clean drinking water and enough wind potential to provide permanent jobs for our families. Or, we can allow mountaintop removal operations to blast our heritage into a pile of pulverized rock and poisoned water.”

“My home and the cemetery where my husband is buried are in jeopardy from mountaintop removal coal mining. I have to be out here to protect my family,” added Lorelei Scarbro, an organizer with Coal River Mountain Watch and a lifelong resident of Coal River Valley. She’s not against coal, but she is against the mountaintop removal mining practice that is poisoning her water and destroying her heritage.

We were joined at the rally by Robert Kennedy, Jr who reminded us of his father’s commitment to fighting poverty in Appalachia. He also talked about the true cost of coal from cradle to grave. Mountaintop removal coal mining is destroying Appalachia, but it is also destroying the climate when that coal is burned.

Today’s rally is happening just as world leaders gather in Copenhagen to discuss global warming. Concern with the mining practice dovetails with a growing demand to replace fossil fuels with clean energy sources. Those who support the wind farm on Coal River Mountain and elsewhere in the region believe that to protect the future of West Virginia, coal country must become clean energy country.

“If we don’t start building a clean energy economy and diversifying jobs in West Virginia what will our children do for jobs in 20 years when the coal runs out?” said Scarbro. “If we can save this mountain then we can begin developing sustainable jobs and renewable energy, and we can maybe have an impact on the climate crisis that faces us all.”

With the EPA starting to look more closely at permit requests and <a href=”http://blogs.wvgazette.com/coaltattoo/2009/06/16/whats-sen-byrd-up-to-on-mountaintop-removal/”>even West Virginia’s Senator Byrd saying the state needs to move beyond mountaintop removal</a>, it’s time for the state Department of Environmental Protection to do its part and stop the blasting on Coal River Mountain once and for all.

Gracias al USHistoryBlog.com, me entero de la existencia de “100 Great Moments in American History You Can Catch on YouTube”, un recurso que podría resultar de gran ayuda para quienes estén interesados o involucrados en la enseñanza de historia norteamericana.  Publicado por OnlineSchool.com, 100 Great Moments in American History You Can Catch on YouTube es una lista de vínculos a  cien vídeos procedentes de YouTube relacionados al desarrollo histórico de los Estados Unidos.

La lista que compone 100 Great Moments in American History está subdividida en ocho categorías. La primera es titulada Inauguraciones presidenciales y recoge vídeos de la inauguración de varios presidentes estadounidenses, entre ellos, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon y Barack Obama. Vínculos mundiales, la segunda categoría, recoge vídeos  de eventos de historia norteamericana de trascendencia mundial como el ataque a Pearl Harbor, el caso Watergate y el 11/9. La tercera categoría –Asesinatos históricos–  está dedicada al tema  de los asesinatos políticos y destacan aquí los vídeos relacionados a la muerte de Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martín Luther King, Robert Kennedy y John Lennon. La cuarta categoría es titulada Discursos históricos y recoge los famosos “fireside chat” de Franklin D. Roosevelt y discursos de Malcom X, Ronald Reagan y George W. Bush, entre otros. La quinta categoría es titulada Momentos fuera de este mundo y agrupa vídeos asociados a la carrera espacial (el lanzamiento del Sputnik, el alunizaje, el desastre del transbordador Challenger, etc.). La sexta categoría  nos lleva al mundo cultural, pues agrupa vídeos relacionados a la historia musical estadounidense como la llegada de los Beatles a los Estados Unidos, Woodstock, las presentaciones de los Jackson 5 y los conciertos de Black Sabbath. La penúltima categoría atiende un elemento muy importante de la cultura norteamericana: los deportes. Aquí encontramos vídeos de la pelea de Cassius Clay y Sonny Liston, la victoria del equipo de hockey norteamericano sobre el soviético en las Olimpiadas de  Invierno de 1980 y la participación de Michael Phelps en las Olimpiadas de 2008. La última categoría –Momentos televisivos– agrupa vídeos relacionados con la historia de la televisión estadounidense: I Love Lucy, Star Trek, Saturday Night Live, The Tonight Show, MTV,  The O´Reilly Factor, Survivors, etc.

A pesar de que la selección de algunos vídeos podría ser cuestionada, 100 Great Moments in American History You Can Catch on YouTube constituye una herramienta útil para la enseñanza y el estudio de la historia de los Estados Unidos.

Norberto Barreto Velázquez,

Lima, Perú, 29 de noviembre de 2009

While Wikipedia is the fifth most popular website in the world and the number of people using it continues to increase, recent research has discovered that its volunteer editors have been leaving in vast numbers and this trend looks set to continue. Does this mean Wikipedia has had its day?

Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger created Wikipedia in 2001 with the aim of empowering people with knowledge by compiling a free encyclopedia for everyone in the world. It uses open source software and is a non-profit organisation relying on fundraising. In 2007 it had grown to 2 million articles and today it has more than 14 million articles in over 250 languages.

Many think Wikipedia’s success has been due to its simple yet radical principles; anyone can write and edit Wikipedia’s articles. However, Andrew Lih, the author of “The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia“, sees Wikipedia as merely having extended the hacker culture of a free and open cyberspace to mainstream Internet users.

Students the world over use Wikipedia as a resource whether their teachers or parents like it or not, or are aware of it or not. I’ve come across lecturers who despise it with a passion, while others accept their students’ use of it. I actively discourage my university students by focusing instead on the importance of approaching online sources with a critical head. Yet I have to admit relying on Wikipedia when I want to find out information quickly (Wikipanion is one of only a few iPhone applications I use on a daily basis). I hang my head in shame, but also wonder why people are preferring to only use Wikipedia passively.

One reason put forward for the rapid decline in volunteers is the increase in bureaucracy, which has taken the original fun out of freely contributing content. Wikipedia adopted additional rules to exercise more control and avoid entries like John Seigenthaler being wrongly accused of involvement in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy (and, my personal favourite, that David Beckham was an 18^th century Chinese goalkeeper), but in doing so could be seen as becoming more like the organisations it originally set itself apart from. Yet without good quality control, Wikipedia is an unreliable resource which can’t be taken seriously.

But how will the lack of editors affect Wikipedia? Losing 49,000 English language editors in the first three months of this year must have some impact. Are we seeing the demise of free user-generated content or is it merely a natural evolution?

Remarks by President Barack Obama at the presentation of the Robert F Kennedy Human Rights awards to WOZA

THE PRESIDENT: “Thank you so much. Thank you. Please, everybody have a seat. Everybody have a seat.
What a wonderful evening. Before I begin, let me just acknowledge some folks here in the crowd. First of all, Ms. Kerry Kennedy, for the great work that she’s doing day in and day out.

Mr. Philip Johnston, thank you to both of you for helping to organize this tonight. Obviously I’ve got to say thanks to my favorite people –
Mrs. Robert F. Kennedy, also known as Ethel Kennedy. (Applause.) To Representative Donald Payne, Representative Gregory Meeks, and Representative Edward Markey, who are all here — thank you for your attendance and your support of this important award.
You know, every year for 24 years, starting the year this award was established, my friend, Senator Edward — Ted — Kennedy, spoke at this event. And I’m told that he looked forward to it all year — that he relished the chance to shine a bright light on an injustice and on those fighting it, and to support them in that fight. He also enjoyed a family reunion. He relished the chance to pay tribute to those carrying on the unfinished work of his brother’s life — work that for nearly half a century in the U.S. Senate he made his own.
He was pleased that this award honored men and women across the globe doing a wide range of urgent work — fighting to end apartheid, advance democracy, empower minorities and indigenous peoples, promote free speech and elections and more. Because Ted understood that Bobby’s legacy wasn’t a devotion to one particular cause, or a faith in a certain ideology — but rather, it was a sensibility. A belief that in this world, there is right and there is wrong, and it is our job to build our laws and our lives around recognizing the difference.
A sensitivity to injustice so acute that it can’t be relieved by the rationalizations that make life comfortable for the rest of us — that others’ suffering is not our problem, that the ills of the world are somehow not our concern.
A moral orientation that renders certain people constitutionally incapable of remaining a bystander in the face of evil — a sensibility that recognizes the power of all people, however humble their circumstances, to change the course of history.
Those are the traits of Bobby Kennedy that this award recognizes — the very traits that define the character and guide the life of this year’s recipient. And while we feel a certain sadness that Senator Kennedy is not with us to honor her, let us also take pleasure tonight in knowing just how much he would have loved and admired Magodonga Mahlangu and the organization that she helps lead — WOZA, which stands for Women of Zimbabwe Arise, and is represented tonight by one of its founders, Jenni Williams.
As a young girl raised in Matabeleland — in the Matabeleland region of Zimbabwe in the early 1980s, Magodonga witnessed the — I’ve got to make sure I get this right — Gukurahundi massacres — the systematic murder of many thousands of people, including her uncle and several cousins — many of whom were buried in mass graves that they’d been forced to dig themselves.

She witnessed the fearful silence that followed, as talking about these events was forbidden. Magodonga found this to be intolerable.

She wanted to speak out — she wanted people to know the truth about what was happening in her country.
So it was a revelation when, years later, she discovered a group called WOZA whose mission is the very opposite of silence. WOZA was started back in 2003 to empower women to speak out about the issues affecting their families and their country — desperate hunger; crumbling health and education systems; domestic violence and rape;
and government repression ranging from restrictions on free expression to abduction and murder of dissidents.
WOZA’s guiding principle is “tough love” — the idea that political leaders in Zimbabwe could use a little discipline. And who better to provide that than the nation’s mothers? Since its founding, the organization has grown from a handful of activists to a movement of 75,000 strong. There’s even a men’s branch, I understand — MOZA.
And over the past seven years, they have conducted more than a hundred protests — maids and hairdressers, vegetable sellers and seamstresses, taking to the streets; singing and dancing; banging on pots empty of food and brandishing brooms to express their wish to sweep the government clean.
They often don’t get far before being confronted by President Mugabe’s riot police. They have been gassed, abducted, threatened with guns, and badly beaten — forced to count out loud as each blow was administered. Three thousand WOZA members have spent time in custody or in prison, sometimes dragged with their babies into cells.
Magodonga and Jenni are due back in court on December 7th, charged with “conduct likely to cause a breach of [the] peace.” They face a five year sentence if convicted.
That so many women have decided to risk and endure so much is in many ways a testament to the extraordinary example of tonight’s honoree.
Each time they see Magodonga beaten back — beaten black and blue during one protest, only to get right back up and lead another — singing freedom songs at the top of her lungs in full view of security forces — the threat of a policeman’s baton loses some of its power.
Each time her house is searched, or her life is threatened, or she’s once again arrested — more than 30 times so far — she continues to stand in public and inspire the people of Zimbabwe — the power of the state then seems a little less absolute.
Each time she has emerged from incarceration after enduring deplorable conditions and brutal abuse — and gone right back to work – the prospect of prison loses some of its capacity to deter.
By her example, Magodonga has shown the women of WOZA and the people of Zimbabwe that they can undermine their oppressors’ power with their own power — that they can sap a dictator’s strength with their own. Her courage has inspired others to summon theirs. And the organization’s name, WOZA — which means “come forward” — has become its impact — its impact has been even more as people know of the violence that they face, and more people have come forward to join them.
More people have come to realize what Magodonga and the women of WOZA have known all along: that the only real way to teach love and non-violence is by example. Even when that means sitting down while being arrested, both as a sign that they refuse to retaliate, absorbing each blow without striking back — and a warning that, come what may, they’re not going anywhere.
They even manage to show love to those who imprison them. As Jenni put it, “Many a time we have in effect conducted a ‘workshop’ for our jailers, acting out the role of a mother and teaching how the country can be rebuilt if we have love in our hearts.”
When asked how they can endure so much violence — and what keeps them going in the face of such overwhelming odds — the women of WOZA reply, simply: “each other.”
And that may be Magodonga’s greatest achievement — that she has given the women of Zimbabwe each other. That she has given people who long for peace and justice each other. That she has given them a voice they can only have collectively — and a strength that they can only have together.
They are a force to be reckoned with. Because history tells us, truth has a life of its own once it’s told. Love can transform a nation once it’s taught. Courage can be contagious; righteousness can spread; and there is much wisdom in the old proverb: that God could not be everywhere, so he created mothers.
In the end, history has a clear direction — and it is not the way of those who arrest women and babies for singing in the streets. It’s not the way of those who starve and silence their own people, and cling to power by threat of force.
It is the way of the maid walking home in Montgomery; the young woman marching silently in the streets of Tehran; the leader imprisoned in her own home for her commitment to democracy.
It is the way of young people in Cape Town who braved the wrath of their government to hear a young senator from New York speak about the ripples of hope one righteous act can create.
And it is the way that Magadonga Mahlangu and Jenni Williams and the women and men who take to the streets of Harare and Bulawayo and Victoria Falls because they love their country and love their children and know that something better is possible.
Bobby Kennedy once said, “All great questions must be raised by great voices, and the greatest voice is the voice of the people — speaking out — in prose, or painting or poetry or music; speaking out — in homes and halls, streets and farms, courts and cafes — let that voice speak and the stillness you hear will be the gratitude of mankind.”
Magodongo and WOZA have given so many of their fellow citizens of Zimbabwe that voice — and tonight, we express our gratitude for their work.
It is now my pleasure to join with Mrs. Robert F. Kennedy to present the 2009 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Award to Magodonga Mahlangu and WOZA.”

Martin Luther King once said that he became a criminal in the eyes of the FBI since his birth on 15th January 1929. Probably he never has been convinced of the contrary in his lifetime. Shortly after Martin Luther King got informed that he had won the Nobel Prize for Peace, he could read in the newspapers an interview with J. Edgar Hoover, the former FBI department chief. In this interview Hoover designated King as “the most notorious liar of the United States”. Also at a press conference Hoover spoke clearly out, what he was thinking about the black SCLC Leader. He promised that he just started with revealing “the truth” about Martin Luther King. J. Edgar Hoover wanted to uncover King as a Citizen Right Leader under the influence of the Communist Party with the aim of destroying the democratic system of the U.S.

Why was J. Edgar Hoover so sure he could inflict damage on the charismatic Martin Luther King?

After the famous “I have a dream“speech, the FBI was afraid of the “black Messiah”. They called him “the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country“[1]. These times are well known in the United States as the anti-communistic containment policy. The FBI feared any possible influence and believed in the domino theory. In result of that fear Hoover wanted to install bugs in King’s House and bureau. No one less than Robert Kennedy gave in 1963 the permission for the technical surveillance. Kennedy who always was shown as a great ally of King allowed the FBI to break into Kings private rooms. Moreover Kennedy added a proviso – he always wanted to get immediately informed of any pertinent information. However, at first sight the technical surveillance was not a success. No demo tape gave any proof of a communistic influence in Kings Work. Furthermore the FBI bugs “never picked any evidence that King himself was a Communist, or was interested in toeing the party line”.[2]

So the bugs couldn’t give any concrete evidence. King was not a Communist, even when he had friends and associates of the Communist Party. Stanley Leviston was one of them. He was one of the immediate advisers in Kings personal environment. Also he was under steady technical surveillance but no evidence was found. King once said about the communist reproaches that “there are as many communists in this freedom movement as there are Eskimos in Florida“. But Hoover did not believe him and searched forward to find other information to inflict damage on King. And he did. The memo tapes gave evidence that King had many affairs- probably with four other women. Maybe today nobody would make a big deal about that- not after the Monika Lewinsky affair. But at these times an extramarital affair was a pretty big scandal- moreover for a Baptist pastor. Even when King affirmed his affairs and said he would have to pass God’s judgment he also knew that the general public would not be so merciful. King and Hoover met once privately to discuss this topic. Afterward King called the meeting a friendly and understanding conversation among two people. King added that all problems should be solved right now. Most probably neither King nor Hoover believed that. J. Edgar Hoover’s private contempt for King was big and he had embarrassing and private details about Kings love life- no doubt he would reveal them.

After King came back from Oslo he received anonymous and ominous letters. “You are a colossal fraud and an evil, vicious one at that.” Or “The American public (…) will know you for what you are — an evil, abnormal beast,” (…) “Satan could not do more.” (…) “King you are done.” Some people have the theory, which says that the intent was to get King to commit suicide. “King, there is only one thing left for you to do,” (…) “You know what it is … You better take it before your filthy, abnormal fraudulent self is bared to the nation.”[3] A draft of one letter was later found in the FBI files. King did not commit suicide but continued his work. Maybe at first sight Hoover did not win the fight with King but surely at the second sight. When King planned the march in Memphis he booked a room in a hotel of a better standard than usually. Hoover immediately began his harassment once again. From his point of view it was hypocritical to fight for the poor and to live in a well-standard hotel. Furthermore Hoover approved an FBI plan to use “friendly press contacts” to pressure Martin Luther King into staying at the Lorraine Motel.

Dr. Martin Luther King bended to Hoover’s will and moved to the Lorraine Motel. At exactly that place he got assassinated- less than 24 hours later.[4]

written by Agnieszka Goździelewska©2009

Further Reading (extract):

Presler G., Martin Luther King, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1984.

Waldschmidt-Nelson B., Gegenspieler, Frankfurt am Main 2000.

Zitelmann A., Keiner dreht mich um, Berlin 1985.

[1] Christensen, Jen „FBI tracked King’s every move” on cnn.com http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/03/31/mlk.fbi.conspiracy/index.html [31.03.2008].

[2] Ibidem.

[3] Ibidem.

[4] More Information at http://www.africawithin.com/mlking/assassination.htm.

All of us experience some events and share lives that affect us more than others do.  I have had my share of family, community, Philippine and world events that made an impact — some were causes of celebration, some were tragedies.  Somehow, each of these events and people left a mark in my heart and in my psyche — marks (sometimes, scars) that helped shape what I am and how I think today.

***

Cover of the Yan Clan History, a book published a couple of years ago.

My father was my type of hero.  Strong, silent, unheralded.  He was not a world figure.  He was not known nor admired by anyone but his family.  He was not rich and famous — just an ordinary man living an ordinary life. The lessons he taught me were lessons learned through the examples he set — examples I strive to emulate, but have never been able to live up to.

Mariano “Menito” Yan was never blessed with wealth, comfort, or luxury.  We, his sons, did not inherit material wealth or goods.  But his whole life was spent trying to build up a nest egg he could leave behind for us.  He never succeeded, but he left a legacy for me whose value far transcends a peso (or dollar) sign.

I will never forget his zest for life, and the laughter that accompanied it. I will always treasure his commitment to family, a commitment that forced him to leave us behind and work overseas — Vietnam at the height of the Vietnam war, Malawi in Africa, and finally Oakland, California — for so many years, just to be able to provide for us.

He showed me how life should be lived, how adversity should be met, how failure should not defeat my spirit.

My heart will forever cry when I remember his words when Rica and I were finally together in the US in July of 1986.  ”Now I can die in peace — you are here and the family is whole again.”

For Thanksgiving Day in 1986, he and my Mom drove down to West Covina from their Hayward home to spend my first US Thanksgiving Day with us.  He never made it back to Hayward.

The Sunday after Thanksgiving, he and my Mom were supposed to drive back to Hayward.  He woke up feeling lost and disoriented.  We called 911, and the paramedics took him to Queen of the Valley hospital, where they diagnosed him as having a stroke.  In fact, he had died, but they resuscitated him.

He spent the next six months in a coma that he never awoke from, and died on March 13, 1987. My lifetime’s hero was gone, and I have never stopped crying.

Like him, I cry silently and alone.  Like him, I never show the tears of loss.  Like him, I never share the pain and emptiness I feel in my heart.  But they’re always there…the pain of loss, the sadness and emptiness, the tears mourning the time we never had together..

To me, in my mind and heart, in my pain and sorrow, my Dad lives…

Wait for me, Dad.  We’ll laugh together.  Take long walks together. Together we’ll make up for the time lost.  Share the dreams we never shared, the triumphs we never had, the glorious days of a son reveling in his father’s embrace, the warmth of your love, the resolve of your strength…  We’ll be together, Dad, with no more tears.

***

Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law on September 21, 1972.

On September 21, 1972, President Ferdinand Marcos, citing a national security emergency, declared martial law through Presidential Proclamation 1081.

In the beginning — and for many years — I believed in what martial law could do, if implemented with fairness, dignity, and integrity.  I believed in the need for discipline, and after so many years of “democracy,” I then believed the Filipino has begun to lose all sense of responsibility.  I also believed the Filipino studentry at that time had exceeded its moral limits, and the communist-inspired bombings, rallies and protests actually served the ends the communist element rather than the Filipino people.

The Sunday Express headline. The Express became a pro-Marcos newspaper after martial law was declared.

I still believe I was right — that the communist elements were the true benefactors of the lack of Filipino discipline.  What I was wrong to assume was that Marcos was the leader who would inspire and maintain dignity and integrity among the Filipino people.

After two or three years of laudable change immediately after he declared martial law, Marcos — through indifference, a lust for power, and greed — allowed, and even fostered, the growth and empowerment of an oligarchy with his cronies as the beneficiaries of his government’s policies.

Marcos would remain in power for 14 more years, until February 25, 1986.  The people finally took to the streets in a show of national defiance and, using what has now come to be known as People Power, forced Marcos and his family and close circle of supporters to leave Malacanang Palace for exile in the United States. It was the same pride I felt when Marcos declared martial law that I felt when he was overthrown.  It was a pride that stirred my heart, when he left.

I recognized then the value of the many lives that had been lost among those who fought the degenerative policies of the Marcos administration.  It took the deaths of two men for me to finally understand that no good end will ever be served by the destruction of human rights.

***

Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino: his assassination in 1983 marked the beginning of the end of the Marcos regime.

August 21, 1983 marked the actual end of the Marcos regime. Although Marcos remained in power for three more years, the assassination of Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino, his most influential critic, sparked what was to become the People Power revolution. Ninoy was gunned down by Armed Forces soldiers as he alighted from a China Air flight that brought him home from Boston, Massachusetts.  Although the Marcos regime insisted that he had been shot in the head by rogue soldier Rolando Galman, no Filipino believed that neither Marcos nor wife Imelda did not have a hand in his murder.

The murder and funeral of Ninoy.

I will always remember sitting and staring at the TV as they played and replayed the last moments of Ninoy’s life.  From the moment soldiers boarded the China Air flight to the moment his dead body was ignominiously dragged and dumped into a waiting Armed Forces truck, the coverage was absolutely numbing.

To be sure, it was not truly unexpected, but the reality of what we, as a nation, had collectively feared was too much to absorb in one sitting.  So as one people, we all sat in our homes, watched, and prayed.  Prayed that somehow what we had witnessed was not real.

***

Edgar "Edjop" Jopson: the "grocer's son" became a major thorn in Marcos' side.

Ed Jopson was the president of the National Union of Students of the Philippines (NUSP) during his student days.  He was also my classmate, a dear friend with whom I had spent many childhood memories.

His parents owned Jopson’s Supermarket, and we would occasionally stay at his house while our parents went out together.  As president of the NUSP, he was more popularly known as “Edjop.”  He was also named one of the country’s “Ten Outstanding Young Men,” an award bestowed annually by the Philippine Jaycees — one of the most prestigious awards in the country at that time.

A career as a labor leader and union organizer led him into notoriety. He was a moderate, and even met with Marcos occasionally.  Then at one meeting Marcos said something that changed Edjop from a moderate oppositionist to an active member of the Communist Party, then headed by Jose Ma. Sison. At a Malacanang meeting, Edjop continually urged Marcos not to run for another term.  Marcos cut the discussion short by saying “Who are you to tell me what to do?  You’re only a grocer’s son.”

Eventually captured and tortured, he escaped and headed for the hills of Bataan to continue his struggle among his “brothers” in the CPP and NPA.  On September 21, 1982 — the tenth anniversary of the declaration of martial law, Edjop headed home from visiting NUSP friends.  Late that night, he heard noises, peeked out the window, awoke six other people in the house, then fled. He was gunned down and killed as he ran…

***

President John F. Kennedy visited the Berlin Wall on June 6, 1963.

August 1990 marked the start of the demolition of the Berlin Wall, the ignominious symbol of the “Iron Curtain” that divided the East and West during the Cold War, which lated for decades. The East German Republic (probably egged on by the Soviet Union), began the construction of the Berlin Wall in August of 1961.  It effectively cut off passage between East and West Berlin, and encircled West Berlin completely.

The Berlin Wall was made up of 96 mi (155 km) of barbed wire barricades and concrete walls with an average height of 11.8 ft (3.60 m). The Wall divided Berlin for 28 years.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." -- President Ronald Reagan, June 12, 1987

In June of 1987, President Reagan stood before the Wall at the Brandenburg Gate and challenged the Soviet Union with those famous words, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” In an unexpected development, a press conference was held on November 9, 1981, where the SED government announced that travel restrictions for East Germans had been lifted.  That night people from East Berlin flooded into the western part of the city and hundreds of thousands celebrated throughout the city.

The Berlin Wall was demolished by the people of Berlin in 1989.

Soon thereafter, the infamous Wall that hundreds had died trying to cross came down.  The Cold War between the US and USSR thawed,and eventually ended.

On November 9, 2009, Berlin celebrated the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall with a “Festival of Freedom”, during which over 1,000 foam domino tiles over 8 feet tall were stacked along the former route of the wall in the city center and toppled.

***

John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963.

John F. Kennedy, 35th President of the United States.

On November 22, 1963, I was walking home from SLU.  As I turned right on Session Road from Assumption Road, I was surprised by the scattered newspapers fluttering in the wind on Session Road.  I picked one up and as I read the red headline, my heart sank. “Kennedy Assassinated.”

The words rang through my mind and for a brief moment, I went numb. The next 24 hours were spent watching TV coverage and reading newspaper accounts of the assassination, the swearing in of Vice President Lyndon Johnson, the capture and killing of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the Walter Cronkite announcement of JFK’s death.

I did not feel that the world was right, and I silently mourned JFK’s death.

On ______, Robert Kennedy suffered the same fate as his brother John.

I did not feel the same deep sadness again until years later, when JFK’s brother Robert, who was on his way to becoming President of the US, suffered the same fate in a hotel in Los Angeles after winning the California Democratic primary.

The Kennedy legacy — many called the Kennedy years “Camelot” — ended when youngest brother Ted died in 2009 from cancer of the brain.

Jackie Kennedy moments before JFK was shot and assassinated.

But to me, Camelot ended with the death of Jackie Kennedy Onassis, JFK’s widow, on May 19, 1994.  To my mind, Ted Kennedy took a leftist path that his brothers John and Robert would not have followed. Today, the Kennedy era is dead…never to be forgotten, but never again to be relived in all its glory, splendor, hope, inspiration, and faith.

***

US newspaper the day US astronaut Neil Armstrong walked on the moon.

July 21, 1969.  On this day, man first stepped on the moon.  US NASA astronaut Neil Armstrong took that first step, and uttered those now-famous words, “One small step for man, one giant step for mankind.”

(Ironically, it was the same day that Ted Kennedy was charged in the drowning death of Mary Jo Kopechne.  See article on lower left of the front page of the newspaper.)

This was the culmination of John Kennedy’s commitment in his inaugural address:

“Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it.  He said, “Because it is there.”  Well, space is there, and we’re going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there.  And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God’s blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.” Within ten years, as JFK had promised, man was on the moon.

***

]]> http://thinkingmakesitso.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/fashion-cycle/ Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:28:33 +0000 Chris Lawrence http://thinkingmakesitso.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/fashion-cycle/ http://verocv.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/traducere-pentru-millennium-press-rebelul/ Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:08:39 +0000 Vero http://verocv.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/traducere-pentru-millennium-press-rebelul/

James Dean, Rebelul: O Biografie Alternativă (The Rebel: An Imagined Life of James Dean)
de Jack Dann, format 14×20,5 cm
aprilie 2008

Redactor: Horia Nicola Ursu

Prezentarea de pe coperta IV:

James Dean era socotit a fi unul dintre cei mai straluciti actori ai generatiei sale. În momentul mortii sale intr-un accident de masina, in 1955. intr-o clipa de cosmar, viata unui om extraordinar a fost curmata. Dar daca lucrurile s-ar fi petrecut altfel? Supravietuind ingrozitorului accident care a lasat asupra sa urme de nesters, in planul fizic si cel emotional deopotriva, James Dean are revelatia ca e sortit sa realizeze “ceva minunat, de-o importanta covirsitoare”. Pentru Jimmy, calea spre glorie va fi insa intortocheata si adesea frinta, presarata cu ramasitele viselor sfarimate si ale iubirilor neimplinite, un adevarat pelerinaj la cele mai faimoase repere culturale ale Americii postbelice, prin lumea sufocata de geniu si droguri a generatiei beat, in sanctuarul ascuns publicului de la Graceland, in umbrele de nepatruns ale Camelotului. Viitorul si vietile unor Jack Kerouac, Frank Sinatra, Elvis, Robert si John F. Kennedy vor fi marcate de intilnirea cu tinarul rebel, in goana sa catre un destin care va schimba lumea. Alaturi de el, suflet-pereche si povara, un fenomen stralucitor pierdut in circumstante tragice, nimeni alta decit fragila zeita a sexului, Marilyn… imbinind cu ingeniozitate realitatea si fictiunea, Jack Dann ne ofera o fascinanta calatorie de-a lungul anilor cincizeci si saizeci, o traversare de neuitat a unei Americi legendare, prin prisma unei legende americane: James Dean, rebelul.

• detalii despre carte şi autor aici şi aici
• comentariu în Evenimentul Zilei din 09.11.2008

 Excerpt from Illuminati News 

Since that dreadful day on November 22nd of 1963 when JFK was assassinated, there has been lots of speculations as to why and by whom he was murdered. You may think that you have heard it all, and that we don’t need another theory. However, I have researched JFK quite a bit; especially with regards to the assassination, and I have come up with a different, and not very widely discussed possibility for the killing, with a parallel that goes back almost a hundred years in time.

JFK was a very controversial President; he wanted to change things around. By doing so, you can’t please everyone, and he stepped on quite a few toes. One thing he wanted to do was to re-organize the CIA from within, because he considered the Agency being a Government within the Government, with too much power. Allen Dulles, who was the head of the CIA at the time did not like the idea of course, and this alone could have been the reason for the assassination. But there is another interesting aspect as well …

To understand this theory we must understand that the real power is not with the politicians, but with the International Bankers (and ultimately those whom are behind them in this complex web of power). Whomever is running the show use banking and finance as their most powerful tool to accomplish their goals. You and I can try to run for Presidency if we want to, but we would not stand much of a chance. It is not because we don’t have good ideas, or are capable enough, but we don’t have the right super rich sponsors. The final candidates are the ones that are chosen by the International Bankers and sponsored by them. The rest of the candidates cannot afford to compete. Also, the same sponsors support both parties, and can therefore keep almost total control over the election.

Most people know that the FEDERAL Reserve bank is creating the US dollars. But the truth is that the Federal Reserve is not federal at all, but owned by twelve super-wealthy International Banking families, such as the Rothschild’s and the Rockefellers. This is a well hidden secret, but can even be verified in “Encyclopedia Britannica”, and in this article, as we shall see. This setup is against the US Constitution, as the government is supposed to create our money (the 16th Amendment), which in its turn should be backed up by gold and silver.

What JFK did was to create interest-free government money, backed up by the silver reserve, contrary to the Federal Reserve money, which is not backed up by anything as you will find out if you continue reading. He wanted to pay off the US debt this way. Apparently aware of the secret behind the Federal Reserve, he decided to go back and follow the Constitution. Of course, this was a very dangerous thing to do, because if he was allowed to continue, it could put the International bankers out of business in the long run. So this was even more serious than to reorganize the CIA.

Interestingly enough, soon after the assassination the interest-free money was taken out of circulation(1).

Kennedy signed a not very well known Executive Order, # 11110(2) in June of 1963, only five months before the assassination (also, click here to read ALL Executive Orders JFK wrote throughout his Presidency, ordered by numbers). This Order returned the power to issue currency to the government, without going through the Federal Reserve Bank. Kennedy gave the Treasury the permission to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury. In plain language this means that for every ounce of silver in the US Treasury vault, the government could let new money into circulation. JFK brought nearly $4.3 billion U.S. notes(3) out on the market. So, we can now clearly see that by signing this Executive Order, he was about to put the Federal Reserve Bank (and with them all the International Bankers) out of business. The Federal Reserve Notes would eventually not be in demand anymore, and by doing so, Mr. Kennedy probably also signed his own death warrant.

Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed up by silver.

Maybe the assassination of President Kennedy was a warning to successors not to “make the same mistake” as this courageous President did. Brilliance is only allowed and acknowledged if it serves the Illuminati Agenda. Although Mr. Kennedy was of an Illuminati bloodline and probably also an occultist on some level, and even involved in practices common man would disagree with, I believe he was a man of honor when it came to politics and he took his job seriously. Being a Kennedy (Illuminati Bloodline) was enough for the International Bankers to sponsor him, thinking he would adjust to the Agenda. Especially when his mob related father, Joe Kennedy, fought hard to get his son into the Office. Joe was in great favor of the Illuminati king pins.

But time told them they had made a mistake and put a person in power whom refused to abide and had his own ideas, eager to execute them. The same thing goes for his brother Robert, and his son John F. Kennedy Jr., whom threatened to reveal the Secret Behind Power shortly before he had his “accident”. It is very interesting to see that all those three Kennedy’s are now dead before their time, while Edward (Ted) Kennedy is still alive, being the one who goes in father Joe’s footsteps to bring the New World Order into a reality.

The JFK intention to end the Vietnam War (which was a very profitable war for the bankers) by 1965 would severely have cut the profits of the private owned Federal Reserve Bank and the banking establishment.

Read rest of article HERE

Er hat den Friedensnobelpreis bekommen und steht jetzt gehörig unter Druck. Zumindest aber in der Pflicht seine Versprechungen, die Welt ein Stück besser zu machen, auch in die Tat umzusetzen.  Von Anhängern als großer Sympathieträger geehrt spaltet Obama nicht zuletzt durch die
umstrittene Entscheidung des Nobelpreiskomitees das Land wenn nicht
sogar die ganze Welt.

Obwohl ich nicht unbedingt an alles glaube was Nostradamus gesagt hat,
mache ich mir Gedanken über folgenden Satz, den der bekannte Astrologe
über den jetzigen US-Präsident geschrieben hat: “Der geringere Teil
zweifelt am Älteren.” Wenn man die Formulierung “der Ältere” mit “der
Weise” oder “der Anführer” übersetzt und “der geringere Teil” mit
der US-Bevölkerung, die sich ja quasi unter der herrschenden Schicht
der Regierung befindet, übersetzt, dann kann man sich ja vorstellen,
wie Obamas Präsidentschaft endet, nämlich mit einem Fehlschlag. Denn die
Menschen können bzw. wollen die revolutionären Ideen des visionären
Politikers Obamas noch nicht annehmen.

Anbei noch ein Artikel von mir, der in der WELT ONLINE zum Thema
“Wahlreporter 2009″ am 15. September dieses Jahres erschienen ist:

Wo ist unser Barack Obama?

John und Robert Kennedy wurden zu Hoffnungsträgern einer ganzen Nation – Obama sorgte durch seine klaren Visionen wieder für einen Zukunftsoptimismus in den USA. In den meisten Aussagen unserer deutschen Politiker steckt allerdings nur rationale Nüchternheit.

Ich vermisse die Emotionalität im Wahlkampf. Ich möchte mitgerissen werden und zwar nicht von perfiden Versprechungen, die sowieso nicht eingehalten werden können. Nein, ich möchte begleitet werden. Begleitet von jemandem, von dem ich mir zu Recht erhoffe, dass er oder sie mich als väter- oder mütterliche Figur durch die Irrungen und Wirrungen gesellschaftlicher Abgründe, sozialer Ungerechtigkeiten und der finanziellen Misere führt.

Jemand, der die Leute mitreißen kann und gleichwohl aber auch Erfahrung und Reife verkörpert um den Herausforderungen des 21. Jahrhunderts gewachsen zu sein.

Das alles sehe ich bei Steinmeier und Merkel noch nicht. Vielleicht bei Guido Westerwelle – aber der ist offensichtlich in der falschen Partei.

In der deutschen Politik fehlt es ganz offensichtlich an Typen. An eindrucksvollen Persönlichkeiten, an Profilen mit Ausstrahlung. Wo sind die Kennedys und Obamas Deutschlands?

Arlington National Cemetary, eller Arlington nationale kirkegård, er måske en af de mest kendte kirkegårde i USA. Det er den føderale stats kirkegård, hvor præsidenter, generaler, astonauter, højsteretsdommere, opdagelsesrejsende, krigsofre og mange andre er begravet her.

En af de vigtigste grunde til jeg har set frem til at besøge Arlington er for at besøge Kennedy-brødrenes grave. Det er mænd, der har været med til at præge USA i mere end 40 år, på deres forskellige måder.

Da Edward Kennedy døde i august 2009 skrev en dansk avis, såvidt jeg husker, at John Kennedy betagede USA, Robert Kennedy inspirerede USA og Edward Kennedy forandrede USA.

Alle har hørt om John Kennedy, JFK, men i kølvandet på Edward Kennedys død stod det mere og mere klart, at hans reelle indflydelse på USA har været enorm. Den korte forklaring er, at han i mere end 30 år har været en del af de centrale love, der er blevet vedtaget i USA.

Her er billedet, som de fleste kender af John Kennedys grav. Går man nogle få meter mod venstre kommer man til broderen Roberts, og derefter til lillebroderen Edwards gravsted.

Det er utroligt og tankevækkende, at tre brødre på denne måde har været i stand til at gøre en forskel og blive en del af et lands identitet og historie, at de bliver begravet nærmest side om side på hvad der i realiteten er landets heltekirkegård.

Til venstre ser du Robert Kennedys gravsted med det meget enkle trækors og hvide sten. Til højre ser du til venstre i billedet Edward Kennedys grav og til højre i billedet kan du ane det hvide kors over Robert Kennedys grav. Længere til højre ser du en række buske. Bag dem er John Kennedys grav. Så de tre brødre er stort set begravet side om side.

Første gang jeg besøgte USA var omkring 1998. Der købte jeg bogen ‘Make Gentle The Life of This World’ af Maxwell Taylor Kennedy. Det er en af Robert Kennedys sønner, der har samlet citater, som faderen brugte i taler og nedskrev i dagbøger. Bogen giver et inspirerende billede af manden og hans tanker om verdenen og kan kun anbefales, hvis man ønsker et mere nuanceret billede af manden.

 Marilyn Monroe is possibly still one of the most famous women in the world and seems that she will never go out of style or be forgotten. From acting to modelling. She was married three times, to James Dougherty then Joe DiMaggio and then to Arthur Miller. Alledged affairs with the Kennedys, including President John F. Kennedy whom it was rumoured that she was in love with. But also rumoured that she had affairs with Robert and Jack Kennedy. She was a very young 36 years old when she died, and her death was never really concluded. A few different options were given and suicide was one of them.

I have to admit that I have not yet seen many of her movies, but I really do plan on trying to watch as many of them as possible. So far I have only seen two movies all the way through those are “All About Eve” and “There’s No Business Like Show Business”, I have seen bits and parts of some of her other movies but I am not counting that I have seen them as have not watched from start of finish. (Yes I know its shocking that I have no watched “Some Like It Hot” or “The Seven Year Itch” all the way through). But that is one of my goals to get to see her movies.

Marilyn really does have some fantastic quotes which she said over the years and I love so many of them, mainly because I can relate and feel the same way about a lot of the things she has said. In some of the quotes she really does sound like she had to defend herself so much and really fight against everyone to show that she was a good actress. But I just think she really was something else, one of a kind and know one has ever come close to what she achieved in such a short time really in Hollywood terms from a young age.

“It’s all make believe, isn’t it?”

“If I’d observed all the rules, I’d never have got anywhere.”

“I don’t mind living in a man’s world as long as I can be a woman in it.”

“I love to do the things the censors won’t pass.”

“A career is wonderful thing, but you can’t snuggle up to it on a cold night.”

“It’s better to be unhappy alone than unhappy with someone.”

“Hollywood is a place where they’ll pay you a thousand dollars for a kiss and fifty cents for your soul.”

“It’s not true I had nothing on, I had the radio on.”

“Sex is part of nature. I go along with nature.”

“If I play a stupid girl and ask a stupid question I’ve got to follow it through. What am I supposed to do – look intelligent?”

“It’s woman’s spirit and mood a man has to stimulate in order to make sex interesting. The real lover is the man who can thrill you by touching your head or smiling into your eyes or just staring into space.”

“Men who think that a woman’s past love affairs lessen her love for them are usually stupid and weak. A woman can bring a new love to each man she loves, providing there are not too many.”

“I restore myself when I’m alone.”

“If you can make a girl laugh – you can make her do anything…”

“No one ever told me I was pretty when I was a little girl. All little girls should be told they’re pretty, even if they aren’t.”

I saved my most favorite quote to post last, I really just think it is the best and think it describes myself.

“I’m selfish, impatient and a little insecure, I make mistakes, i’m out of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can’t handle me at my worst, then you sure as hell don’t deserve me at my best.”

***EXCLUSIVE TO THE OLD YORKER. MUST CREDIT THE OLD YORKER IN ALL MEDIA***

The Old Yorker recently sat down with Owen “Ken” Kennedy, the last surviving brother of the storied clan, to talk about legacy, Camelot, grace, and what it was like to be part of the American Century’s greatest political dynasty. Despite being overshadowed by brothers older, bolder, slimmer and more energetic, powerful, charismatic and libidinous, Ken has spent a life quite literally at the center of Camelot, as a member of an Arthurian reenactment troupe.

TOY: The rest of your family is so prominent, why have you been so under the radar?
KK: Ah, I was ah, plumper and, ah, shorter, and hence less possibly suited for public life in the conventional sense and also I had less aptitude for looking at the world and seeing things that never were and saying “why not” than, say, Bobby, who was, ah, very good at that.

TOY: You’ve devoted a significant portion of your life to rendering a replica of the city of Boston, entirely in chocolate. Why?
KK: All free men, wherever they may live, are citizens of Boston and to my mind, love confections.

TOY: How important has faith been in your life?
KK: Look, let me make this rather, ah, simple. I am not a Catholic Reenactment King Arthur, I am a member of the Democratic party who is a Reenactment King Arthur who happens to be Catholic.

TOY:What is your most distinctive characteristic?
KK: A craving to be loved, or, to be more precise, to be caressed and spoiled rather than to be admired. Or, uh, to be rolled in marzipan dough, oiled and sprinkled with confectionary suger and tickled by my grammy. It was said by some that this was done to me too often as a child and that my brothers were aghast and repulsed as they stood, glistening in their sweatshirts slowly lateralling a football between them but I couldn’t…can’t get enough of it.

TOY:What’s quality you most like in a man?
KK: Feminine charm. (Chuckles. Then, serious) High, wide hips and the ability to promise and deliver on sending a man to the moon within ten years time!

TOY: The quality you most like in a woman?
KK: I just don’t want to be pushed in the pool by them. I grew up with a bunch of lantern-jawed sisters and sisters-in-law who thought it was sporting to push a chubby youngster in a pool and then throw a cocktail glass at him. I also don’t appreciate women who will swaddle a boy of more than ten years; in a gingham tablecloth diaper and call all the servants over to laugh and look at the worlds largest baby…Ethel!

TOY: What do you most value in your friends?
KK: Look, I want to let every one of my supposed “friends” know, whether he wishes me well or ill, that I shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, and oppose any foe to assure that I’m not treated like a some kind of town pump!

TOY:What is your principal defect?
KK I was born in this century, tempered by war, and disciplined by a hard and bitter peace. But the worst thing that happened was my hair was cut like the actress Louise Brooks in sort of a flapper style and I was made to hand out cigars in the Merchandise Mart for father’s amusement. That was many years ago now.

TOY: What is your favorite occupation?
KK:To repair the roof when the sun is shining if you know what I mean…you don’t? Could I have five dollars for a bullshot?

TOY: What is your dream of happiness?
KK: To be thirty-five again, having just gotten my drivers’ license and with an associate’s degree under my belt and an opportunity to… (Grabs his sides and weeps)

(Five minutes later) TOY: In what country would you like to live?
KK: In a country of freedom and dignity where one can fly and be invisible.

TOY: Who is your favorite hero of fiction?
KK: Any hero from any work of fiction who honors legacy, family, has grace, and is a pig lost in a city.

TOY:What is it you most dislike?
KK: People who believe that just because you are rich and from a famous, storied family with a hammerlock on flattering coverage in the newspapers and a generous dispensation of well, grace, that you’ve somehow started life in a position of advantage.

TOY: What event in military history do you most admire?
KK: My own merit badges in the cub scouts which were earned with little influence by father who famously said “I don’t want to pay for one single badge more than you need because I’m not paying for a landslide…of badges… (Fake laughter and then a coughing fit)

TOY:Um. Okay, what is your motto?
KK: Let us never negotiate out of fear but let us never fear to negotiate… for anything, I mean, everything is negotiable, health care for all Americans, a living wage, parking tickets, the cable bill, footrubs, dessert portions, a tip when you’ve done something special for a relative who has more money than you…

List continues – Recorder off