Richard on SW

[huisache]

Rog: I worked on Kennedy's campaign when I was a kid and adored the man; later I educated myself and came to a clearer understanding of what he was about.

I graduated with honors from UT in American history, was an AA for a new deal specialist who later won a Pulitzer while at Harvard and have a history library of several thousand volumes and got over my mancrush on the Kennedy's several decades ago. As for the thuggish brother, why do you start in 1959? He was one of Joe McCarthy's henchmen years before that.

He presided over the Justice Department when some of its greatest crimes were committed, was a paranoid anti communist, tapped MLK's phones, etc.

He finally came out against LBJ's continuation of his brother's war (and murder of Diem) after Eugene McCarthy showed LBJ was vulnerable----leading to the joke among us left wingers at the time that Bobby finally stood up to McCarthy but it was decades late and the wrong McCarthy.

You live in fantasy land, which is a good place if you are going to worship the Pied Piper President.

 

[Roger35]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[huisache]

I was familiar with Mockingbird, SIOP and Z/R a long time ago. Used to read the Times and Post religiously for the latest on the Church Committee's findings. I already knew some of it because of being a Ramparts subscriber and a cousin in the intelligence field.

Finally, before I get back to my life, I am curious about your take on affirmative action. Lots of people spend a lot of energy defending its continued existence (see Fischer v. UT) but when somebody points out an instance of someone actually benefiting from it all of a sudden they are a white supremacist or whatever.

Affirmative action exists as a matter of law in some instances. Some people benefit, either as a matter of law or as a matter of practice. When I was on the hiring committee for a large enterprise I know we certainly went out of our way to seek out minorities of various kinds. I don't apologize for that and have been pleased with the success of some of them. I suggested Obama was a beneficiary in terms of his hire as a sort of professor at the UC Law School. I did not say he could not get a job at a high dollar law firm, though I have serious doubts he would like working for one given his commitment to public work. I think he was offered the job there because of his Ivy League resume and his skin color. Getting a prof with those credentials who is black is a big win for any school. If I am correct and skin color was a big factor in his hire, then it is likely that UC did not hire any white Ivies with similar resumes at that time. Of course white Ivies are a dime a dozen and those uninterested in getting rich might flock to such a job.

If he was a legal academic of the first order, as his lemmings seem to think, I would guess he left a trail of legal scholarly articles in his wake. I have been unable to find any, though after reading his two books back in 2008 I would not expect to find any. Who has time to write scholarly articles when one has written two memoirs at such a young age?

 

[huisache]

by the way, there are not just two explanations. You, for example, may not be completely wrong---in fact, I think you are correct in many particulars.

Dividing options into two opposing camps and then saying they are the only options smacks of Manichaeism and is best avoided.

 

[Roger35]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[huisache]

separating the false from the alternative is a tricky business and I have always had doubts about anyone's ability to do it with any regularity. I always thought Protagoras got the better of the argument.

Have a nice weekend

 

[Roger35]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Bayerithe]

to anyone knocking Bush's intelligence

link

dude was brilliant. made a few small oral gaffes but try having the world watch every word you say and see what gaffes they come up with as all.

 

[HornHuskerDad]

From the previous post -

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Roger35]

Oh boy, there's gold in that 'write-up' by the guy who worked for dubya! Will get to it once I have a cell to my laptop.

 

[huisache]

W struck me as at least as smart as the two guys he beat but I never voted for him; he did appear to have some sort of speech problem at times and never struck me as someone who had a lot of intellectual curiosity. He did have the good sense to quit paying attention to Cheney;Wolfowitz et al and start listening to Rice when everything was obviously in the zhitter

 

[Crockett]

Good link Bayerite. I'm hopeful everyone except Roger35 sees by now the wrongheadedness of equating Bush's intelligence that that of his gubernatorial successor.