Yeah I guess, w/jaundiced ear

Post #49,996 by Ashton 8/21/02 3:20:16 AM Reply	Yeah I guess, w/jaundiced ear OK, I Vas Dere Charlie - I was in Berkeley throughout (including the large marches there and in SF.) Later.. some Livermore Lab protests: Hah! protesting my own 'sister'-Lab! in early '80s for its duplicity, role in MIRV-ing everybody's missiles = Unnecessarily.. except to force more nuke e$calation. Etc. [See Edward Teller] Yer tryin to characterize a Decade + ?? Fool's errand, so I'll try too; no links were scanned for this report, or puppies killed. First - why would anyone imagine! that magically.. there was 90% participation solely by altruistic brilliant Sages? In '60s or any other time. Gawd we love our mindless slogans. I'll go with your sense that - Yes, along with the poseurs, the embryo wanna-be MBAs and other expected detritus, were a significant portion of 'sincere' but more than that, informed folks - willing indeed to risk injury in opposition to bogus laws, recent State actions (and the same old Corp hegemony du jour / 3% Ruling Class who ever manage to prevail over always unorg. opposition, for obvious reasons of possessing the power). Ho hum? 'Spirit' there was, as we (US) haven't seen since. IMhO. There was lots of participation in regular drudge work.. for law students, ex. - refs and reading and lectures, often enough by credentialed folk: no class credit; Use the law. Nothing subversive in that. (OK - I interviewed-sorta Mario Savio, with my Uher 'Report-L' recorder, for ~ 20 min - under guise of 'Reporter' status. This via my program on KBRG about stereophile nonsense + some hastily installed decals on the case.. This during the FSM sit-in at UCB: an hour before the CHP arrived to drag folks down the steps, bouncing heads down each one, etc. First-hand vignette, at least. Damn! missed - Joan Baez singing, on the front steps. :( I saw genuinely selfless deeds along with some just stupidly dangerous ones - accompanying the expected parasites and sillies. Putting a % on any of the above? would just be personal estimate and bogus. The press? - Guess! what they chose then as now - to extirpate from a mass of actions anything Photo-Op; ignore.. the sustained, daily hard work done by ordinary folks - and most-all of the results of those works. A bare boob and - press nirvana. Babies same as now. But moving back a few years to IMO the Start: There is no doubt that 11/22/63 and the later assassinations catalyzed the initial Wake-up Little Suzie calls.. and the momentum built from that day. I don't believe that 9/11 had nearly the same kind of Shock as 11/22; the country is now so different in composition, daily routine nastiness on- and off-screen: 9/11 was just an Extreme event, not a different Kind of event. We've been exploding others' buildings.. forever. And gleefully watching smart bombs blow up a bunker (Ooops - full of civilians - bomb shelter. Oh well, collateral). Now catch this shot of the F-99 chasing down a runner! POW got 'im. And now a word from.. 11/22 was: an unKnown volcano erupting in every major city --> burg. The power of the television medium to 'communicate' were realized for the very First (and Last time, since). People Shut Up, news-types apologized! when they thought they had to murmur some next factoid. No narratives.. mainly: just stark photos (for many, B&W TV == ultimate film noir, Live). This saturated the emotional centers of Everyone from noon on 11/22 through the Monday of the funeral, a tour de force almost entirely of Jacqueline Kennedy direction. Performing ~supernaturally, as she tacitly planned to get self + kids outta this nutzo culture SAP. As she eventually did, after RFK. IMhO: this surreal Mood STUCK.. underlay all subsequent events in the US (and many other places). On through Vietnam (and some of it persists in small ways). At JFK's death there were <15 K Murican 'advisors' in Vietnam -- and JFK was himself mightily disturbed by realizing that his inactions had directly caused the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem (sp) [it has been said by several, later]. He planned to reduce the 15K, as of mid-Nov. '63. Johnson went, simply - NUTZO. Read about it all. By the time of Woodstock.. the music, the mood the main hourly Interest of (in my experience, an unprecedentedly large group) was: Politics! ('sociology' near-enough?) ie what these governing critters were saying VS what 'was being done in Our name' ie why so much sucked.. yet so many ordinary folk kept babblin '50s platitudes and watchin the War on Tee Vee and then Lawrence Welk or whatever: both in the same catatonic state of disconnect. Just reread the '68 Democratic Convention events for a soup\ufffdon, a mere whiff of grapeshot. Kent State - child wannabe-Brown Shirts shooting students - through 0-training, immaturity and patently unjustified panic. Lots of lesser events in kind. And no - there's not been any remotely generalized 'movement' of Any kind I can recall.. since! (Ronnie brought us Corporate Greed as Sacrament + go-Back-to sleep, but Get Yours and Theirs First.) Certainly nothing with any real Spirit! - and Spirit there Was, whatever else, galvanized from especially the Moment of: RFK's assassination '68: he certainly would have become President. Now the 'conspiracy' idea of, "killing off any Great Hopes" [??] began to fester and transform and exponentiate. That was the last straw for many.. I met. An electric evening and for days following. DOOM: there would be Nixon. Again, and despite his shameless? shameful juvenile exit from being beaten by Pat Brown for CA Gov. Muricans mostly (on through current ones) have yet to fully face our behaviour, the absurd rationale, our acts in Vietnam over YEARS. We are In Denial still IMO. The rush to allow the Constitution to become trashed by all 3 collaborating Estates of Govt - is all the proof required. Add in the 4th Estate: Corporate owns that. (Mostly, of course; there's never >90ish% - for the number folk) I know some who carried their early awareness of the massive hypocrisy of Murica's fav slogans.. on into 'adult'hood and academia, local business, even govt. Do my 'numbers' count? Of course not. Peace.. \\____/ _\\__/ __\\/ [That Word] always Was a chimera and most?.. Knew.. that all the theatrics were about simply - changing alertness, awakening a precious few [max] to the nakedness of the Emperor's slogans. No one with a 3-digit IQ believed that the fat, reactionary fence-enclosed wielders of power would Ever! suffer an Epiphany?! (Any more than believe Billy/Bally might) Did significant numbers Really imagine that next, all them Yahoos would beat their swords into plowshares? Return the offshore deposits? C'mon - they weren't all (or even mostly) Stupid! They simply - stopped being sheep And Puritans izzall, and at ~ the same time. (Had lots to learn after dropping that mind-numbing load.) Some learned / some didn't. Ho hum. Read more Vonnegut. Ashton sloppy summary, but WTF there cannot be The Complete True Story\ufffd or even the full all-purpose definition of 'Hippie' Old: The Thousand Year Reich New: The Millennium [fill in next despicable] 'Act'
Post #50,067 by mmoffitt 8/21/02 5:07:07 PM Reply	Very interesting read. Thank you.
Post #50,073 by Another Scott 8/21/02 6:14:49 PM Reply	re Diem Hi Ashton, An interesting writeup. :-) One comment - you write: At JFK's death there were <15 K Murican 'advisors' in Vietnam -- and JFK was himself mightily disturbed by realizing that his inactions had directly caused the assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem (sp) [it has been said by several, later]. He planned to reduce the 15K, as of mid-Nov. '63. I recall a USNews and World Report article from maybe 15 years ago that said that Kennedy had [link\|http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/nf/featured/ken/kenfp.html\|signed off on the coup] (an American Experience link) - it wasn't really inaction on his part. I doubt that the US knew that he would be killed though. I think there's evidence on both sides on whether he'd had ideas for reducing US involvement in Vietnam. From the same link: As 1963 wore on, Kennedy considered his options. He could commit further, even send in American combat troops. He could withdraw, and let the Communists claim victory. Kennedy found neither solution palatable. Then another option developed. Some of Diem's generals began to plot a coup against their leader. Kennedy, who had promised to help developing nations help themselves, gave his approval. On November 2, 1963, Ngo Dinh Diem died at the hands of his generals. In South Vietnam, citizens responded positively to the coup. With Diem out of the way, hopes rose that South Vietnam could stave off the Communists. Less than two weeks after Diem's death, Kennedy himself was assassinated. The man who promised the world he would stand up to the Communists had done so--for better and for worse. Now another Cold Warrior, Lyndon Baines Johnson, would take his place. And in the jungles of Vietnam, America's bloodiest Cold War confrontation was only beginning. [link\|http://www.chuckiii.com/Reports/History_Other/The_End_of_the_Diem_Regime.shtml\|Here] is an article that discusses the history with a fairly similar viewpoint. Take it with a grain of salt though - no cites are provided. Cheers, Scott.
Post #50,080 by ben_tilly 8/21/02 6:52:09 PM Reply	WTF was it about the Kennedy family? You have a campaign between Nixon and JFK. It goes down in history as the first political demonstration of how appearance trumps content in a TV environment (the presidential debate was declared won by JFK by those who saw it on TV, and Nixon by those who heard it on the radio), and a campaign that was infamous for the voting chicanery (particularly near Chicago graveyards). JFK officially wins, and Nixon decides to accept that rather than divide the country by fighting it. So we get the first Roman Catholic president, youngest ever IIRC, the first one born in the 20'th century. Charisma and an attractive wife I will grant you, if you grant me a family with a tendancy to alcoholism and womanizing. JFK's primary pursuit was seeing how many women he could screw. Somehow he found time to bring us to the brink of nuclear war (the Bay of Pigs fiasco), triple the number of CIA missions, got us into Vietnam (and I don't think it is clear that he planned on getting us out of it), and is widely believed to have murdered his girlfriend, Marilyn Monroe. (Some think that Robert was responsible instead. Theories abound.) Then he got murdered. Many think there is CIA involvement. If so, then he got his just desserts for what he had them do everywhere else in the world. But in any case it doesn't matter. He gets murdered. He is seen as a hero, and for decades to come he will be the great tragedy, cut down in his prime. His death accomplishes something useful. The Civil Rights act is passed in sympathy. (Along with a rider for women's equality placed there as a joke by Southern senators when it looked like they would kill it. Certainly the idea of woman's lib was the last thing on JFK's mind, unless you mean liberating them of their clothes and/or virginity.) Lyndon Johnson comes to power. He then dives into Vietnam, and civil rights. And gets re-elected. A few years later JFK's brother Robert comes to the public stage. He manages to make himself into a hero for millions of young adults. He milks it for all it is worth, then gets killed as well. Thereby guaranteeing that his followers will never become disillusioned with him. JFK's widow, being the good social climber that she is (she has class and is liked so we won't call her a golddigger) marries the richest guy she can find. And a few years later Ted drives off of a bridge, while drunk, and kills a woman. This derails any presidential hopes. He has since become an institution in the Senate who is noted (unsuprisingly) for drunkenness and womanizing. So WTF is it that leaves people thinking that the Kennedy family is somehow great? Hell, even people who spent years demonstrating against the Vietnam War and the CIA can't seem to be bothered noticing JFK's role in both! Puzzled, Ben PS To be fair, there is one Kennedy that I respect. And that is Caroline, who with Ellen Alderman has managed to make the play of conflicts in the US legal system seem interesting. Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. -- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2002)
Post #50,086 by a6l6e6x 8/21/02 8:13:31 PM Reply	Bingo. I'm equally puzzled. If Kennedy lived or Johnson had not capitalized on his death, civil rights legislation would not have made it when it did. For some reason the Kennedys have been treated as royalty. And no one talks about the shady doings of his father Joseph Kennedy. I was in college in the Boston area during the 1960 election and heard some bad stuff from a local. In the 1964 election there was a Kennedy, no relation, who was in jail for graft that was re-elected in a town just North of Boston. Yep, the name causes loss of rationality. Alex "Television: chewing gum for the eyes." -- Frank Lloyd Wright
Post #50,090 by Another Scott 8/21/02 8:31:45 PM Reply	TR was younger. JFK youngest elected. Agree with the rest.
Post #50,096 by boxley 8/21/02 9:26:20 PM Reply	The camelot myth I enjoyed the LBJ tapes edited and compiled into "Taking Charge" Johnson whitehouse tapes 1963-64 . Changed long held opinions of the man. As for Kennedy he was an outsider much like Clinton, Just think of the accolades if BC was whacked shortly into his first term. In oct you could not have found a texan that would admit voting for kennedy. After november you could not have found one who didnt. He was the first assasination in the instant media (TV) age so the iconisization was swift and certain. As a president he promised us ther moon and space and gave us viet nam. I believe that war stopped our travel into space and colonization of the moon. A waste of a generation. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/Resume.html\|skill set]
Post #50,137 by Ashton 8/22/02 4:43:25 AM Reply	Re: WTF was it about the Kennedy family? ____[in 20/20] \ufffdWARNING! - Over-simplification. Data dilution renders compression algorithm results: >50% error probability. Image integrity cannot be guaranteed. You asked, WTF was it about the Kennedy family? then you lumped its two historically exceptional members within a caricature. That is to entirely miss the significance of both JFK and RFK, whatever a one's political coin-toss, or earned displeasure with all power-mad clans. It's a cute dismissal, but within the cynicism is also a smarminess which doesn't even entertain. It's umm bogus. I have little defense for much of this clan's 'history', but the above is just too facile. Let's recap the venue, shall we? 1) This was the US of A. Appearances are All - then add-in an emergence of the occasional charismatic: You tell me how logic might do in the ensuing contest. 2) Nixon was a slime from Day 1; in his opening bout with Helen Gahagan Douglas, he pulled all the stops from commie pinko-ish on through tying that to her underwear color + the usual sexist mind-numbing crap of the '50s. Ike apparently (who ever knows, about these reports) came to ... loathe may be too strong a word, but gave little personal support to his candidacy. (He just.. golfed.) Your observation re the different impressions via TV/radio, I have heard also. Nixon had just left the hospital (his recurrent phlebitis IIRC), he refused make-up and looked like a sweating corpse. [I've seen kinescopes]. But the 'surveys' you mention re 'winning the debate' were not the usual pseudo-real 'polls' but included opinions of the [hell, call it Gravitas?]. You as a mathophile would discount it. Whatever JFK's actual sex life, and the certainty that we shall never know - his, RFKs or others' relationship to the Monroe unNatural death - none of this stuff was known then. Still and all - it seems likely that his win was ~bogus == yes, Nixon was - that close, whatever the Charisma\ufffd. (Not as bogus as the recent one of course, but also apples/oranges) It's impossible for me to distill the hundreds of hours exposure to K's wit (and its speed), his use of language etc. - and even the manner of his screw-ups VS.. the usual Murican polit-speak of the prior days. Nor can you, second-hand - estimate the magnitude of the effect of his Inaugural speech (even). Go view some of his press conferences for a hint of what I'm trying to limn. Ike had bored 'us' unto death; here was Excitement (!) The response to his assassination was little to do with "the death of a State Figure"; everything to do with the extent of JFK's charisma + (IMhO) the sense of loss of so much anticipated in his Next term. There was pathos* (and naturally bathos too) shared by millions -- certainly comparable to at FDR's death, which came as no surprise - he was obviously dying.. (though for FAR-less accomplishment, most all can agree now). * Everybody got to play: what Would he have done in 1964 ??? Simplest put - he appeared Alive as so few politicians ever seem; he was erudite and above all [re the 2nd term] he exuded those possibilities. That IMhO is the root of the myths. Deconstruction was inevitable and as with all such: Would! intermix factoid and imagination. (as with many Believers' personal picture of God, the male anthropomorph) On to RFK - and whatever he Was VS seemed to be (to foes and friends). A few years later JFK's brother Robert comes to the public stage. He manages to make himself into a hero for millions of young adults. He milks it for all it is worth, then gets killed as well. Thereby guaranteeing that his followers will never become disillusioned with him. JFK's widow, being the good social climber that she is (she has class and is liked so we won't call her a golddigger) marries the richest guy she can find. Too long a story even to tap the hi/low spots: he had gone from initial work as atty., for HUAC, House UnAmerican (!!) Activities Committee as in slime? ... on through, much-more than an "AG" joined-at-hip to JFK all during the Admin --> what could only be described as a most unLikely epiphany of conscience. Especially for.. a member of the K-Clan! Try to 'prove' that his speeches of that campaign -- were merely 2002 'War on Evul'-grade hype, if you want. If the above jingle is what you take for an adequate dismissal of the man + his clan (and also as final fractional-crystallization of Jaccqueline K. to an ugly totem) - enjoy your smug distillation. It doesn't remotely capture +/-s, the flavor of the play - but it Is 'short'. IMO, as a person.. RFK simply cannot be dismissed as-if "just another of the K-Clan / all the rest is hype". Ho hum. He was regarded differently from his brother - he was deemed to be actually Honest! He Would have been President, and everyone (I ever met at the time = a considerable number) 'Knew' he would end Vietnam! speedily and the expectation was: "honorably" in a definition which would have been alien to Nixon's psyche. (my opinion from all experience of both). The timing of his death, etc. + the 5 years since JFK, the ML King assassination, the 58,000 US heaped dead burned bodies + the 3? 4? millions of Vietnamese dead -- produced a second national mourning; by then less Shocking because -as NOW- so much Other bad shit had numbed people since 11/22/63. As to the rest of this clan: Yes of course, Joe Kennedy exemplified the sort of greed which Ronnie blessed during his turn to read the scripts. Disassembly nears completion on these -- including the recent ones who raped, murdered etc. (Skakel? IIRC - nailed for a 20+ year old murder of a neighbor girl). Endless lode to be minded. Soap Opera. But Muricans Love! (-d?) dynasties and especially Dynasty Tee Vee: call it an inherited Royals-envy; Orb & Sceptre, Pomp & Circumstance.. or as Dick Feynman would have put it, *Epaulets!* :-\ufffd Ashton Of Course! everyone whose massive ego seeks Power... bloody-well Had better Be SUSPECT! {sheesh}
Post #50,172 by mmoffitt 8/22/02 1:02:13 PM Reply	Ike got us into Viet Nam, not Kennedy.
Post #50,176 by Another Scott 8/22/02 1:36:11 PM Reply	Actually, it was Truman's fault. >:-) [link\|http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/vietnam/index-1945.html\|Vietnam Timeline] September 2, 1945 - Japanese sign the surrender agreement in Tokyo Bay formally ending World War II in the Pacific. On this same day, Ho Chi Minh proclaims the independence of Vietnam by quoting from the text of the American Declaration of Independence which had been supplied to him by the OSS -- "We hold the truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This immortal statement is extracted from the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. These are undeniable truths." Ho declares himself president of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and pursues American recognition but is repeatedly ignored by President Harry Truman. September 13, 1945 - British forces arrive in Saigon, South Vietnam. In North Vietnam, 150,000 Chinese Nationalist soldiers, consisting mainly of poor peasants, arrive in Hanoi after looting Vietnamese villages during their entire march down from China. They then proceed to loot Hanoi. September 22, 1945 - In South Vietnam, 1400 French soldiers released by the British from former Japanese internment camps enter Saigon and go on a deadly rampage, attacking Viet Minh and killing innocent civilians including children, aided by French civilians who joined the rampage. An estimated 20,000 French civilians live in Saigon. September 24, 1945 - In Saigon, Viet Minh successfully organize a general strike shutting down all commerce along with electricity and water supplies. In a suburb of Saigon, members of Binh Xuyen, a Vietnamese criminal organization, massacre 150 French and Eurasian civilians, including children. September 26, 1945 - The first American death in Vietnam occurs, during the unrest in Saigon, as OSS officer Lt. Col. A. Peter Dewey is killed by Viet Minh guerrillas who mistook him for a French officer. Before his death, Dewey had filed a report on the deepening crisis in Vietnam, stating his opinion that the U.S. "ought to clear out of Southeast Asia." [...] It's a long and intricate history... Cheers, Scott.
Post #50,192 by a6l6e6x 8/22/02 3:40:04 PM Reply	Revisionist history! It was the French. :-) It was General Charles de Gaulle that was to blame. There was no Viet Nam then, it was called French Indo-China. The French had been there since the middle of the 19th century. Rubber tree plantations were the main attraction. At least till [link\|http://www.dienbienphu.org/english/index.htm\|Dien Bien Phu] in 1954. Alex "Television: chewing gum for the eyes." -- Frank Lloyd Wright
Post #50,258 by ben_tilly 8/23/02 7:54:17 AM Reply	And note that Eisenhower hadn't yet sent in the army Eisenhower left that to Kennedy, and Kennedy did not disappoint. Cheers, Ben Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. -- Edsger Wybe Dijkstra (1930-2002)

Welcome to IWETHEY!