I doubt that when Christians in the Middle Ages started exchanging small fits with each other in celebration of Christmas, they anticipated the holiday would someday grow into a celebration of excess, greed and commercialism that it has become--engulfing a second holiday (Thanksgiving) and becoming a major source of stress (and depression) in many people's lives. What was once Christmas has now become !!!!!CHRISTMAS!!!!! But what would have happened if those Christians had not decided that the Feast of Jesus's Birth (and more historically correct, the visit of the Magi bearing gifts on the Epiphany) was a good time to get each other a "few nice things".
What time would you have rolled out of bed today--and Thanksgiving day--if there was no !!!!!CHRISTMAS!!!!!? Unless you do news for the local radio station, I can guarantee it wasn't going to be 4 am, or 2 am or Midnight. No one would have been camping outside Best Buy since Tuesday to be first in line this morning. And all of those people who were flooded with unhappy shoppers yesterday, could have been at home enjoying turkey dinner and the Lions destruction of the Packers.
What would your budget look like every December if there was no !!!!!CHRISTMAS!!!!!? Would it be easier to make the full property tax payment--instead of accruing the interest to pay in installments? And what would your January, February, March and even April credit card statements look like? I bet taking that Florida trip around spring break time would be a lot easier to handle.
Without !!!!!CHRISTMAS!!!!! would you be stressed out because no store within 100 miles of Oshkosh has a PlayStation 4 in stock right now? Would you be worrying about finding time to send 85 cards to people you haven't spoken to or seen in person for 20 years? Would you be buying ingredients for dozens of high-calorie snacks when you already have plenty of food already in the kitchen?
What would your kids be like if they weren't getting so wound up about !!!!!CHRISTMAS!!!!!? Would they be starting every sentence with "I want...."? Would they be getting confused about who is the real "star" of December 25th? Would they be jumping out of bed and running downstairs at 3 am on any other Wednesday morning? And would they treat not getting the previously-mentioned PS4 as the greatest tragedy in the history of humanity?
If those early Christians had known what those first few gift-exchanges were going to bring hundreds of years later, they probably would have chosen to mark the day by just spending it in bed.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Thanks A Lot!
Since this is the season for giving thanks.....
I am thankful that the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act was delayed for a year. I can guarantee that Cumulus Broadcasting Incorporated would have been one of the first companies to choose to drop health insurance coverage and just pay the penalty--I mean "tax" for constitutionality purposes. That would have meant even more rants in this space about the failure of the HealthCare.gov website (which everyone--except Kathleen Sebelius and President Obama fully expected) as I tried to find coverage as affordable at the $30 a month that I pay for my current High Deductible Health Savings Account policy with which I am more than happy.
I am also thankful that I am not in charge of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade tomorrow. Who would think that a family event like this would become so politically charged? It started with South Dakota cattlemen raising a stink about vocal vegan Joan Jett being selected to ride on their state's float. She got moved to a different float. Then along comes PETA and other animal rights activists who have decided to protest the Sea World float. They saw the CNN documentary on the treatment of killer whales at the theme parks: Blackfish and have decided that Free Willy needs to happen in real life. It just goes to show that the term "proper venue" no longer applies to protests of any kind. And to add injury to insult, high winds may ground the famous parade balloons--meaning Al Roker and Chris Christie will have to fill in as "big, gas-filled displays" instead.
I would also like to thank the lifeguards at the 20th Avenue YMCA in Oshkosh for keeping such close watch over me in the competition pool. I've decided to add swimming to my fitness regimen--but unfortunately, I have no natural buoyancy. That means most of my effort goes into not sinking to the bottom of the pool--rather than actually moving forward in the water. Those lifeguards seem to hover around my side of the pool as soon as I hit the water--waiting for that rare moment that they will actually get to put their training to use.
And finally I would like to thank the people that stop me when I'm out and about around town and tell me how much they enjoy My Two Cents. I'm glad that I get the chance to make people think or want to change the way things are going or just have a good laugh every once in a while.
Happy Thanksgiving!
I am thankful that the employer mandate in the Affordable Care Act was delayed for a year. I can guarantee that Cumulus Broadcasting Incorporated would have been one of the first companies to choose to drop health insurance coverage and just pay the penalty--I mean "tax" for constitutionality purposes. That would have meant even more rants in this space about the failure of the HealthCare.gov website (which everyone--except Kathleen Sebelius and President Obama fully expected) as I tried to find coverage as affordable at the $30 a month that I pay for my current High Deductible Health Savings Account policy with which I am more than happy.
I am also thankful that I am not in charge of the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade tomorrow. Who would think that a family event like this would become so politically charged? It started with South Dakota cattlemen raising a stink about vocal vegan Joan Jett being selected to ride on their state's float. She got moved to a different float. Then along comes PETA and other animal rights activists who have decided to protest the Sea World float. They saw the CNN documentary on the treatment of killer whales at the theme parks: Blackfish and have decided that Free Willy needs to happen in real life. It just goes to show that the term "proper venue" no longer applies to protests of any kind. And to add injury to insult, high winds may ground the famous parade balloons--meaning Al Roker and Chris Christie will have to fill in as "big, gas-filled displays" instead.
I would also like to thank the lifeguards at the 20th Avenue YMCA in Oshkosh for keeping such close watch over me in the competition pool. I've decided to add swimming to my fitness regimen--but unfortunately, I have no natural buoyancy. That means most of my effort goes into not sinking to the bottom of the pool--rather than actually moving forward in the water. Those lifeguards seem to hover around my side of the pool as soon as I hit the water--waiting for that rare moment that they will actually get to put their training to use.
And finally I would like to thank the people that stop me when I'm out and about around town and tell me how much they enjoy My Two Cents. I'm glad that I get the chance to make people think or want to change the way things are going or just have a good laugh every once in a while.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
How Did They Do It?
For those of us who enjoy the culinary arts, Thursday is the Super Bowl of Cooking. Huge pieces of poultry that need to be roasted to just the right temperature or they dry out, family-tradition recipes that will draw complaints if they don't taste "the way they always have", and the challenge of having nearly a dozen items time out perfectly so everything can get on the table together. And just like the players and the teams in the football version of the Super Bowl were better and more skilled in the past--the cooks who put on these huge feasts in yesteryear are much better than those of us today.
I came to that realization over the weekend as I did prep work on the ingredients I would need for the stuffing that I was bringing for our Thanksgiving potluck here at the Radio Ranch on Monday. Chopping onions, celery and fresh herbs took almost an hour--and I consider myself fairly skilled with a chef's knife. And then it was another hour yesterday morning to mix and bake it. Plus, I was making just one element of the meal for about 15-people. One of my grandmothers had to cook for almost thirty people when I was a kid. And she made a meat stuffing that required her to grind the sausage before she made it.
In hosting my parents and in-laws the last few years at our house, I've had to cook for only six people every year--and that's exhausting. How did a woman in her sixties and seventies manage to make FIVE TIMES as much food--and have it taste even better? She peeled all of the potatoes before boiling and mashing them--I leave the skin on (much to the chagrin of my father-in-law). She boiled her yams, then sliced them and pan-fried them in butter--I just throw one big one in the oven. She had to make those big 25 pound turkeys that required you to get up at 6:00 am to get in the oven so it was done by 4:00 in the afternoon--I get by with a 12-14 pounder that usually gets done in about 2 and a half hours. She had to eyeball the bird to know when it was done--I've got a remote thermometer that provides me up to the minute temps and beeps when the meat is done. Grandma also baked all of the pies--likely from real pumpkins, not that canned stuff and rolling out the dough by hand--I leave the pie-making to my wife now.
And Grandma's reward for all of that hard work with 70's ear cooking equipment? Having to wait until everyone else had eaten before she got to sit down and enjoy the lukewarm leftovers that her kids and grandkids didn't cram in their bellies. Sitting with a few of her daughters--while everyone went back into the living room to watch the second half of the football game.
Today's Thanksgiving feast may be easier--but it certainly isn't better than it used to be.
I came to that realization over the weekend as I did prep work on the ingredients I would need for the stuffing that I was bringing for our Thanksgiving potluck here at the Radio Ranch on Monday. Chopping onions, celery and fresh herbs took almost an hour--and I consider myself fairly skilled with a chef's knife. And then it was another hour yesterday morning to mix and bake it. Plus, I was making just one element of the meal for about 15-people. One of my grandmothers had to cook for almost thirty people when I was a kid. And she made a meat stuffing that required her to grind the sausage before she made it.
In hosting my parents and in-laws the last few years at our house, I've had to cook for only six people every year--and that's exhausting. How did a woman in her sixties and seventies manage to make FIVE TIMES as much food--and have it taste even better? She peeled all of the potatoes before boiling and mashing them--I leave the skin on (much to the chagrin of my father-in-law). She boiled her yams, then sliced them and pan-fried them in butter--I just throw one big one in the oven. She had to make those big 25 pound turkeys that required you to get up at 6:00 am to get in the oven so it was done by 4:00 in the afternoon--I get by with a 12-14 pounder that usually gets done in about 2 and a half hours. She had to eyeball the bird to know when it was done--I've got a remote thermometer that provides me up to the minute temps and beeps when the meat is done. Grandma also baked all of the pies--likely from real pumpkins, not that canned stuff and rolling out the dough by hand--I leave the pie-making to my wife now.
And Grandma's reward for all of that hard work with 70's ear cooking equipment? Having to wait until everyone else had eaten before she got to sit down and enjoy the lukewarm leftovers that her kids and grandkids didn't cram in their bellies. Sitting with a few of her daughters--while everyone went back into the living room to watch the second half of the football game.
Today's Thanksgiving feast may be easier--but it certainly isn't better than it used to be.
Monday, November 25, 2013
I'M CALLING YOU FROM THE PLANE!!
The next attack on a polite society is about to come at 30,000 feet as the Federal Communications Commission considers lifting its ban on in-flight cell phone calls by passengers. Apparently, there are so many "important" phone calls being missed by travelers that we need to allow everyone access to their cellular system every minute of their lives.
The airlines can no longer use the "threat to the safety of the plane" excuse for making everyone keep their phones off during flight--as studies have shown having cellular devices on don't threaten the electronics on-board the plane. But perhaps they could still shut this down by arguing the noise generated by 200-people all trying to have phone conversations at the same time would make it impossible for the flight attendants to pass along important information.
I realize that cell phones are an omnipresent feature of our modern society--and that the rules of common courtesy have been abandoned when it comes to talking to someone on the phone while in the presence of others--often seated right next to you. But in most other situations, if you are put off by the callmaker or calltaker, you can move somewhere else to avoid having to listen to half a conversation that usually isn't worth the 18-cents a minute to make it on a cellular system. On a plane, you don't have that luxury. And given that airlines continue to shrink their seats in all classes--the phone would be as close to your ear as it would be to the caller's.
And here is how every phone conversation in flight is going to go: "Hey man, what's up?...I can barely make out what you are saying, I'm on the plane right now....yeah, the connections not real good....what? The dog is pooping barley?......oh, I didn't think that's what you said....well we won't be landing for another two and a half hours, so there's not a whole lot I can do about it right now.....hello?....hello?.....Oh, I thought I lost you there.....yeah, they allow you to call from the planes now......so what are you having for dinner?.....no, they don't feed you on the flights anymore.....who'd want to eat it anyway.....Ha ha ha!.....What?...I can't make out what you are saying....why don't I just call you after we land?"
And because an airplane cabin isn't exactly the most quiet setting, the above conversation will take place at a level just below a yell. Then mulitply that by about 200 and you can see what the average flight will be like in the future. You need only consider that in-flight calling has been allowed for decades--but the exorbitant cost of using the air phones meant only important calls were made.
My biggest fear is that the airlines will not oppose the lifting of the cellphone ban--but will instead use it to generate even more revenue. This would be the perfect opportunity to charge an extra $20 or $25 per passenger to sit in the "Cellular Use Aproved" section of the plane--while charging those of us who would prefer to not hear what the guy next to us did on his trip yesterday an extra $20 or $25 to sit in the "Non-cellular Section".
As I told my wife the other day, my Bose Noise Cancelling Headphones could become even more valuable than their $200 price tag.
The airlines can no longer use the "threat to the safety of the plane" excuse for making everyone keep their phones off during flight--as studies have shown having cellular devices on don't threaten the electronics on-board the plane. But perhaps they could still shut this down by arguing the noise generated by 200-people all trying to have phone conversations at the same time would make it impossible for the flight attendants to pass along important information.
I realize that cell phones are an omnipresent feature of our modern society--and that the rules of common courtesy have been abandoned when it comes to talking to someone on the phone while in the presence of others--often seated right next to you. But in most other situations, if you are put off by the callmaker or calltaker, you can move somewhere else to avoid having to listen to half a conversation that usually isn't worth the 18-cents a minute to make it on a cellular system. On a plane, you don't have that luxury. And given that airlines continue to shrink their seats in all classes--the phone would be as close to your ear as it would be to the caller's.
And here is how every phone conversation in flight is going to go: "Hey man, what's up?...I can barely make out what you are saying, I'm on the plane right now....yeah, the connections not real good....what? The dog is pooping barley?......oh, I didn't think that's what you said....well we won't be landing for another two and a half hours, so there's not a whole lot I can do about it right now.....hello?....hello?.....Oh, I thought I lost you there.....yeah, they allow you to call from the planes now......so what are you having for dinner?.....no, they don't feed you on the flights anymore.....who'd want to eat it anyway.....Ha ha ha!.....What?...I can't make out what you are saying....why don't I just call you after we land?"
And because an airplane cabin isn't exactly the most quiet setting, the above conversation will take place at a level just below a yell. Then mulitply that by about 200 and you can see what the average flight will be like in the future. You need only consider that in-flight calling has been allowed for decades--but the exorbitant cost of using the air phones meant only important calls were made.
My biggest fear is that the airlines will not oppose the lifting of the cellphone ban--but will instead use it to generate even more revenue. This would be the perfect opportunity to charge an extra $20 or $25 per passenger to sit in the "Cellular Use Aproved" section of the plane--while charging those of us who would prefer to not hear what the guy next to us did on his trip yesterday an extra $20 or $25 to sit in the "Non-cellular Section".
As I told my wife the other day, my Bose Noise Cancelling Headphones could become even more valuable than their $200 price tag.
Friday, November 22, 2013
What's Good For the Goose....
The next couple hundred years in Washington are certainly going to be interesting, considering the new rules of government being implemented by the Obama Administration and Democrats in the Senate.
Let' start with this week's decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to employ the "nuclear option" and do away with more than 230-years of history in that body by changing the rules for over-riding a filibuster. No more will a super-majority of 60-votes be needed to force cloture--now a simple majority of 51 will suffice. And that same one-vote majority will be all that's needed to approve judicial and cabinet appointees. Democrats say the change is needed to "overcome Republican obstructionism" in the Senate and get the people President Obama appointed into those offices.
But what those on the Left seem to forget is that someday, there will be a Republican President and a slim Republican majority in the Senate. And when that Republican President wants to appoint about a hundred pro-life Federal judges to then bench, it will require just that same 51-votes to move the process along. But do you think those future Democrats will sit idly by and say "Well, those are the rules, I guess we just have to sit here and take it." You know that they absolutely will not. Instead, their will be continuous cries that "we need to return to the old ways of doing things in the Senate in order to protect the power of the minority!" We'll probably also hear "This is not the way the American People want their government to operate!" Well sorry, kids, we are playing by your rules now.
And the President set some interesting precedent earlier this year by setting aside enforcement of entire sections of the Affordable Care Act--without any approval from Congress. Remember the delay in the Employer Mandate to provide health insurance to all workers? There was no Congressional vote before the President just waved his hand--waiving the requirement. The same goes for this month's decision that insurance providers can continue to offer existing plans that do not conform with the requirements that were passed by Congress in 2009. Again, no vote in Congress was made to amend that law--President Obama said nobody has to pay attention to that provision--and it suddenly went away.
So what will be the Democratic reaction when that future Republican President waves his hand and says "We will no longer enforce the individual mandate for health insurance coverage--and the IRS is hereby prohibited from collecting the fine--I mean tax for constitutionality purposes--on people who go without coverage"? Will liberals say "I guess he's just doing what's best for the country at this juncture"? Hell no they won't. They will angrily take to the floors of Congress accusing that President of violating the Constitution and acting in a "totalitarian fashion" in circumventing the legislative process to "further his own extreme agenda".
However, those Democrats will be hoist upon their own petards, as that President points to Mr. Obama's actions in 2013 as the precedent and basis for his actions. Hopefully he reminds his critics on the Left that "We are just playing by the rules that you guys set."
Let' start with this week's decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to employ the "nuclear option" and do away with more than 230-years of history in that body by changing the rules for over-riding a filibuster. No more will a super-majority of 60-votes be needed to force cloture--now a simple majority of 51 will suffice. And that same one-vote majority will be all that's needed to approve judicial and cabinet appointees. Democrats say the change is needed to "overcome Republican obstructionism" in the Senate and get the people President Obama appointed into those offices.
But what those on the Left seem to forget is that someday, there will be a Republican President and a slim Republican majority in the Senate. And when that Republican President wants to appoint about a hundred pro-life Federal judges to then bench, it will require just that same 51-votes to move the process along. But do you think those future Democrats will sit idly by and say "Well, those are the rules, I guess we just have to sit here and take it." You know that they absolutely will not. Instead, their will be continuous cries that "we need to return to the old ways of doing things in the Senate in order to protect the power of the minority!" We'll probably also hear "This is not the way the American People want their government to operate!" Well sorry, kids, we are playing by your rules now.
And the President set some interesting precedent earlier this year by setting aside enforcement of entire sections of the Affordable Care Act--without any approval from Congress. Remember the delay in the Employer Mandate to provide health insurance to all workers? There was no Congressional vote before the President just waved his hand--waiving the requirement. The same goes for this month's decision that insurance providers can continue to offer existing plans that do not conform with the requirements that were passed by Congress in 2009. Again, no vote in Congress was made to amend that law--President Obama said nobody has to pay attention to that provision--and it suddenly went away.
So what will be the Democratic reaction when that future Republican President waves his hand and says "We will no longer enforce the individual mandate for health insurance coverage--and the IRS is hereby prohibited from collecting the fine--I mean tax for constitutionality purposes--on people who go without coverage"? Will liberals say "I guess he's just doing what's best for the country at this juncture"? Hell no they won't. They will angrily take to the floors of Congress accusing that President of violating the Constitution and acting in a "totalitarian fashion" in circumventing the legislative process to "further his own extreme agenda".
However, those Democrats will be hoist upon their own petards, as that President points to Mr. Obama's actions in 2013 as the precedent and basis for his actions. Hopefully he reminds his critics on the Left that "We are just playing by the rules that you guys set."
Thursday, November 21, 2013
A Cinderella Story.....
A couple of years ago in this very forum I called upon the WIAA to reduce the number of teams that make the High School Football Playoffs. I argued that 224 is too many, and waters down the "achievement" of making the post-season. I pointed out that a number of teams were making the playoffs with overall losing records--and .500 conference records at best. And then once those teams got in, they were almost always blown out by undefeated, conference champions--leading one to wonder if that was really a "reward" for a "successful" season. By it's physical nature, football is not set up to allow for a "Cinderella" team to put on a miracle run in the playoffs because the superior team can always pound away and wear down a weaker team. It's not like basketball where you can play a grind-it-out style to limit possessions and just keep the game close until the end.
In the years since that My Two Cents, the pattern continued. Bad teams getting rewarded with post-season berths only to get hammered. And it looked like the same thing was going to happen this year--as the WIAA had to select six "wild card" teams with losing conference records just to fill out the field of 224. But this time Cinderella decided to show up. And as fate would have it, she is coming from our own backyard in Winneconne.
The Wolves entered the playoffs with a less-than-stellar 4-5 record--but they qualified based on their 4-4 Eastern Valley Conference record (which they got only by winning their last two regular season games). They were a six seed in their regional and were expected to bow out in either the first round against either River Valley or Wautoma. But the Wolves surprised everyone by winning both of those games rather easily. And after an upset win over number one seed Nekoosa in Level Three, they were suddenly in the State Semifinals against defending Division Four Champions Somerset. A thrilling two point victory last Friday means Cinderella takes the coach down to Madison to play for the Glass Slipper--I mean the Gold Ball.
And who is there waiting for Winneconne? A Platteville Hillmen team that finished the regular season with a 5-4 record. Together, the two teams will combine for the most losses ever in a State Championship game. And that has made this game the talk of the tournament--as it appears Cinderella will be battling Cinderella for the title. (The second-biggest topic of discussion is how two teams from the same conference, Oshkosh North and Kimberly, are meeting in Madison and not in one of the regionals?)
So congratulation to Winneconne on this historic run and for showing that sometimes, Cinderella really can wear cleats.
In the years since that My Two Cents, the pattern continued. Bad teams getting rewarded with post-season berths only to get hammered. And it looked like the same thing was going to happen this year--as the WIAA had to select six "wild card" teams with losing conference records just to fill out the field of 224. But this time Cinderella decided to show up. And as fate would have it, she is coming from our own backyard in Winneconne.
The Wolves entered the playoffs with a less-than-stellar 4-5 record--but they qualified based on their 4-4 Eastern Valley Conference record (which they got only by winning their last two regular season games). They were a six seed in their regional and were expected to bow out in either the first round against either River Valley or Wautoma. But the Wolves surprised everyone by winning both of those games rather easily. And after an upset win over number one seed Nekoosa in Level Three, they were suddenly in the State Semifinals against defending Division Four Champions Somerset. A thrilling two point victory last Friday means Cinderella takes the coach down to Madison to play for the Glass Slipper--I mean the Gold Ball.
And who is there waiting for Winneconne? A Platteville Hillmen team that finished the regular season with a 5-4 record. Together, the two teams will combine for the most losses ever in a State Championship game. And that has made this game the talk of the tournament--as it appears Cinderella will be battling Cinderella for the title. (The second-biggest topic of discussion is how two teams from the same conference, Oshkosh North and Kimberly, are meeting in Madison and not in one of the regionals?)
So congratulation to Winneconne on this historic run and for showing that sometimes, Cinderella really can wear cleats.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
The Things People Will Believe
As we approach the 50th anniversary of the Kennedy Assassination, a new poll finds 61% of Americans still believe that the President's death was part of a conspiracy. Kennedy conspiracy believers aren't quite as nutty as those who think NASA faked the moon landings or those who believe that the 9/11 attacks were actually coordinated by the Bush Administration in an attempt to start a war against Afghanistan and Iraq--but they still need to work on getting a life.
I think a lot of this "Who Really Killed Kennedy" stuff would have gone away by now if it hadn't been for Oliver Stone and his movie JFK back in the 1990's. There are people who honestly believe that Stone's film was a documentary--rather than a fictionalized version of a New Orleans District Attorney who believed that he had somehow stumbled upon solving the "Crime of the Century".
In case you had forgotten the plot lines, in 2 & 1/2 hours, Stone lays out his "case" that Kennedy was actually killed as part of a vast conspiracy involving the FBI, the CIA, the Mob, Fidel Castro and the Communists and the Industrial Military Complex--ostensibly to prevent him from invading Cuba, ending the war in Vietnam before it even started and increasing civil rights for Blacks. (I'm suprised--given Stone's political leanings--that he didn't find a way to include the Republican Party in the grand scheme as well.)
Think about that for a minute. Think of the hundreds if not thousands of people supposedly involved in the "conspiracy to kill the President"--and not a single one of them goes to any form of law enforcement or the media to spill the beans? None of them leaves a trail of phone calls, letters, telegrams or checks? And who managed to coordinate all of these agencies--most of whom actually worked against each other, but apparently managed to find "common ground" in wanting the President dead.
Conspiracy theorist have it much easier than law enforcement and historians do. Theorists can just throw out whatever thought they have and they don't have to back it up with credible, concrete evidence. Investigators don't have that luxury--they need to present indisputable facts. That's why Doris Kearns Goodwin and David McCollough aren't writing books on "Who Killed the Kennedys?" And it's why JFK was directed by Oliver Stone and not Ken Burns.
But if you still want to hang onto your theories and conspiracies, that's fine. I know a guy who knows a guy who heard about a woman whose son has some props from the Moon Landing studio that might want to buy as well.
I think a lot of this "Who Really Killed Kennedy" stuff would have gone away by now if it hadn't been for Oliver Stone and his movie JFK back in the 1990's. There are people who honestly believe that Stone's film was a documentary--rather than a fictionalized version of a New Orleans District Attorney who believed that he had somehow stumbled upon solving the "Crime of the Century".
In case you had forgotten the plot lines, in 2 & 1/2 hours, Stone lays out his "case" that Kennedy was actually killed as part of a vast conspiracy involving the FBI, the CIA, the Mob, Fidel Castro and the Communists and the Industrial Military Complex--ostensibly to prevent him from invading Cuba, ending the war in Vietnam before it even started and increasing civil rights for Blacks. (I'm suprised--given Stone's political leanings--that he didn't find a way to include the Republican Party in the grand scheme as well.)
Think about that for a minute. Think of the hundreds if not thousands of people supposedly involved in the "conspiracy to kill the President"--and not a single one of them goes to any form of law enforcement or the media to spill the beans? None of them leaves a trail of phone calls, letters, telegrams or checks? And who managed to coordinate all of these agencies--most of whom actually worked against each other, but apparently managed to find "common ground" in wanting the President dead.
Conspiracy theorist have it much easier than law enforcement and historians do. Theorists can just throw out whatever thought they have and they don't have to back it up with credible, concrete evidence. Investigators don't have that luxury--they need to present indisputable facts. That's why Doris Kearns Goodwin and David McCollough aren't writing books on "Who Killed the Kennedys?" And it's why JFK was directed by Oliver Stone and not Ken Burns.
But if you still want to hang onto your theories and conspiracies, that's fine. I know a guy who knows a guy who heard about a woman whose son has some props from the Moon Landing studio that might want to buy as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)