barth's Blog

barth Commented on November 22 by barth

2009-11-23T11:29:13Z

My new favorite musician, Regina Spektor, is 29 years old. Her family left the Soviet Union during the perestroika of 1989 (Jews, they were fleeing from the rampant anti-semitism that ruled their lives) and settled in the Bronx. Her only connection with non-classical music while in the USSR were cassettes her father had, including, mostly, the Beatles.

Her departure had nothing to do with the end of the Soviet Union, I suspect (though what she has contributed as an American is incalculable) but surely the Beatles motivated, in part, her parents to flee.

I agree as well that the Sullivan show had limited impact of the psyche of the country. Only those of us of a certain age even cared about it, and we were not generally the movers and shakers we think we became.

I actually do not think we have gotten over the Kennedy assassination yet.

barth Commented on November 22 by barth

2009-11-23T00:43:20Z

Oh.

barth Commented on November 22 by barth

2009-11-23T00:42:04Z

I think I did what you guys have suggested, but I need the space between the "we are living in a time..." segments so each stands out and stands alone, as well as part of the whole. If you know what I mean.

I really did not intend to get into the "who killed Kennedy" thing ("after all, it was you and me"). I thought Garrison was onto something in 1967 or 1968, but I was a gullible high school kid and, without going into what I do for a living, truly regret getting sucked into that.

I am aware that anybody who says Oswald acted alone is a dupe and that anything that supports that is a tool of the somebody or somethingorothers, but, as to the final shot:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/13/jfk-forensics-tech-02.html

barth Commented on November 22 by barth

2009-11-23T00:23:55Z

I am not sure I know what you mean? Should I shorten the portion "above the fold"?

barth Commented on November 22 by barth

2009-11-22T19:58:35Z

That's what you see. I don't. I see something else, which I do not care to describe, in reaction to a shot from the rear.

barth Commented on November 22 by barth

2009-11-22T19:57:17Z

Thank you, thank you, so much for that. Great perspective.

My recollection of the Ruby shooting Oswald (I missed it, coming back from Sunday school, by about a minute) was that NBC (we were a Huntley-Brinkley family hence our two tvs were both there) had it live with Tom Petit covering the basement transfer and that is the video we keep seeing today, while CBS (all of you Cronkeiters---he had only been anchor for a couple of years while H-B had been around since 1956) was showing the procession of people passing the casket in the Capitol rotunda and switched to show a videotape (early days of this) moments after it happened.

NBC was proud of its revolting advantage on this and showed the video over and over that day including, as Mad Men showed, a slow motion version with Bill Ryan (the local NY anchor helping out with the network that weekend) carefully parsing it so we could all see what happened.

At 11, I did not need the slow motion. A big, fat guy with a hat stepped in front of NBC's cameras, there was a loud sound, Oswald yelled something and there was a mad scramble.

That remains, happily, the only time I have ever seen anything like that.

barth Commented on November 22 by barth

2009-11-22T18:21:17Z

I was 11. I was required to go to Hebrew school on the 24th on the rabbi's theory that a religious school was the place to be that day. I bitterly disagreed, but went (mush as the Drapers went to the wedding) and got back minutes after Oswald was shot.

My dad mumbled something about someone taking the law into his own hands. Without accepting any conspiracy theory, it seemed wrong that we could not even safely put the President's assassin on trial; that the system of laws was not working all that well.

These were the first days of my life when I even cared about something that did not involve me directly, so I was not yet facile in all the "what does it all mean" things, and the excitement of seeing history was trumping everything. Still, it didn't seem to be a good thing.

barth Commented on November 22 by barth

2009-11-22T16:26:43Z

I think that many of us are not interested in the conspiracy theorists and speculation about who was responsible for the President's murder. I have read about as much as most people and am convinced that Oswald killed the President and that it is likely he acted alone. I do not think that something that significant could remain unexposed for so long

You are, of course, entitled to a contrary opinion. It is a mistake, however, to connect a disinterest in the who killed the President issue to the, as you put, "epoch changing" significance of that murder.

barth Commented on President Truman on tonight's debate by barth

2009-11-22T15:44:05Z

I will try to share your views and optimism.

barth recommended President Truman on tonight's debate by barth

2009-11-21T22:35:40Z

barth Commented on Leahy Rubs Sessions' Nose In Civil War Defeat by Rachel Slajda

2009-11-18T17:08:25Z

All that section means is that they can't sue

barth Commented on Whining about bowing and Other Attempts to Demean the President by barth

2009-11-18T17:06:07Z

Just wait until he wishes people a Merry Christmas.

barth Commented on Whining about bowing and Other Attempts to Demean the President by barth

2009-11-16T22:08:24Z

His son was his secretary in France, but I don't think so in England, where Abigail was with him. His status was, of course, significantly different after what the King called "the separation" even if we date our independence to July 4, 1776. By this point, nobody was trying to capture and hang Mr. Adams.

The PBS series a year or so back made it appear that Mr. Adams considered the idea that he not bow before the King since he was no longer a subject in any way, shape or form, but in the presence of the court itself, as Ambassador of the United States of America, Mr. Adams knew better and that nobody, not even FOX News, would take a bow to mean that he was taking it all back and that the United States would return to British rule. (OK, the FOX News part is fanciful, but relevant nonetheless. I don't think the Emperor believed the President was surrendering to Japan and undoing the outcome of World War II.)

barth Commented on David Brooks: Sarah Palin Is A Joke -- And Bob McDonnell Is The Future by Ben Frumin

2009-11-16T02:17:03Z

I care about the country and would like a return to the two party system, but to get there this Reagan GOP needs to be destroyed and Cheney=Palin; Palin-Cheney would do just that.

barth Commented on David Brooks: Sarah Palin Is A Joke -- And Bob McDonnell Is The Future by Ben Frumin

2009-11-16T02:14:04Z

Poor David. His therapist must be working overtime. David: As your vote for President Obama last November (I am sure of it) made clear, your beloved Republican Party expired two decades ago, but what remnants of it continued were buried in November in the NY 23rd. Gov Palin is a joke, but so was G HW Bush, and their beloved Ronald Reagan, as you know. You keep telling us about a party that has moved beyond The Great Reagan, but I don't see it anywhere.