http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:11:50 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735490 John Kennedy was reckless. If you read a book about JFK called "JFK Reckless Youth"; Kennedy on PT 109 thought that PT boats should be gunboats. He was tired of being shot at by Japenese sniper fire in the Blackett Strait, so he got a surplus 37mm antitank gun and had it tied to the forward deck with mounts, the legs of the cannon had to be tied down with ropes since there was no other way to do it. The crew by all accounts was astonished to mount this big gun to the deck. This is interesting in light of the fact of his calm and cool reasoning during the Cuban Missile Crisis 19 years later. Now I know he was thinking about his safety however, this is rather reckless and foolhardy. Another story which happened which shows Kennedy's recklessness. The PT boats would go on patrols near Russell Island in the South Pacific and come back at dawn to the dock. Kennedy and another PT boat onetime were racing to the homestretch. Well Kennedy won the race, but ran into the corner of the dock. The engine stalled after he won and was throttling down. Later people near the dock learned to run to the beach when Kennedy's PT boat came coming to the dock. Kennedy's nickname became "Crash Kennedy". He was a heroic guy but very reckless. Does recklessness and heriocs go hand in hand? Was this recklessness part of what made him go in an open limousine in Dallas in 1963? Who knows. 735490@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:11:50 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735487 Excellent points Dan. I agree. John McCain in my mind showed great heroicm. I think McCain and JFK have more in common than McCain and Obama honestly. As much as I am not really a fan of John F. Kennedy, when it comes to his wartime experiences, JFK was heroic. Some even say he was reckless, but cowardly the Kennedys were not. I might not be a fan of the Kennedys, yet even his detractors can say that the Kennedy family went for the glory in everything they did. After Kennedy was a Lt. in the Navy, he comes home and forges ahead great liberal programs in the 1960's. That is where he hurt his legacy. Big spending. What I see which separates Obama from Kennedy is committment to America. Kennedy proved that he loved his country with his wartime service.. Obama never proved it. You always had the feeling that the Kennedys would die for their country in wartime without a doubt. So even though I disagree with them, part of me admires them. 735487@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:44:44 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735485 It strikes me that by declining early repatriation offered because his father was an admiral, intended by his captors to show that was willing to desert his comrades in arms and accept special privilege, shows substantial strength of character and more than mere passivity. Ditto his other conduct referenced in the article. One of the points I tried to make in the article was that although merely "forgetting to duck" does not make one a hero, subsequent conduct as a POW can. Dan 735485@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:26:37 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735483 "John McCain is not heroic, merely stoic. He didn't resist while a POW, or organize a resistance, or attempt an escape. He just endured. That's stoicism." The heroism was his attitude and courage. He did what he had to for this country. Not many people would have had the strength to persevere at the Hanoi Hilton. What would resistance do? He was a smart man to not resist. 735483@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:10:36 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735481 He did say something Clavos he said "Look it up"! Both of you should calm down and come back when you are well rested. The article here is pretty good. Kennedy and Obama are both urbane and good looking and stylish. Obama is similar to Kennedy minus the experience. Clavos, have you done your homework yet and looked up your false info? I am kidding Clavos! I hope you guys try and enjoy the web. When it becomes a macho contest then it gets a little boring. Bye. 735481@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:47:52 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735464 One more time, Terry, You say: "Your facts are wrong about Vietnam." WHICH facts? HOW are they wrong? What's your proof that they're wrong? Surely, even a pointy-headed "professor" knows that, if you're going to say someone is wrong, you have to be specific and prove it. Otherwise, you've said nothing. 735464@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:56:16 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735463 Isn't it nice to see grown men argue. Neither of you are looking very educated. Cut this out and enjoy the article!. Terry, your students would be very proud to see your comments on here. 735463@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:54:47 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735458 Clavos, Spelling is not my strong suit as knowledge apparently is not yours. My father was a terrible speller, yet was Professor Emeritus. Part of being educated is knowing your weaknesses and learning. Correcting people when you yourself do not have the facts only makes you look angry or bitter. Your facts are wrong about Vietnam. You should try and read a book instead of looking on the net for your information. The internet is inaccurate. Like I tell my students: DO THE WORK YOURSELF! 735458@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:28:48 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735436 "The facts you use are from the Vietnam websites. They are inaccurate." Which facts, Terry? Don't just generalize; explain exactly which "facts" I've stated are inaccurate, how, and why. Nothing I've written in this thread came from a "Vietnam website." As an historian at UT, I'm surprised you can't spell "reiterating." 735436@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:37:24 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735430 Clavos, The facts you use are from the Vietnam websites. They are inaccurate. As a matter of fact, all of you are inserting some inaccurate facts. I am looking at the inserts and I note that all of you {including Bliffle and Mark and Clavos} are exaggerating some important items. Not false claims, but exaggerations. It would be nice to have objective inserts. 735430@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:58:06 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735399 John McCain is not heroic, merely stoic. He didn't resist while a POW, or organize a resistance, or attempt an escape. He just endured. That's stoicism. The constant inflation of McCain to hero diminishes the REAL heroism of POWs who did what the Geneva Convention allows of POWs: the right to attempt escape. Many REAL hero POWs died for their efforts, such as the River Kwai POWs, the Great Escape POWs, etc. Heck, my father-in-law was a greater hero: he escaped from 3 Nazi prison camps and returned to the fight. He got a praise filled letter from Gen. Eisenhower for his accomplishments. And he never bragged about it or even mentioned it. I wouldn't be mean about McCains pose as a hero except that he and his disciples keep blathering about his POW experience. He should be careful since he could be subject to a swiftboating at a critical time in the campaign. His POW skirts are not clean and some other ex-POWs have it in for him. 735399@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:49:42 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735395 Terry, I'm not quoting "Vietnam websites." I fought in that war. 735395@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:39:08 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735394 Mark Gioli: were you around when JFK was president? I was, and I didn't have any of those notions. I LIKED JFK, as many people did, but I thought he was an opportunist and appeaser with weakly-held principles. He lost me completely when he vigorously denied Russian missiles shipped to Cuba for 9 months while we all could see the U2 photos of tarp draped missiles on Russian ships in Cuban ports. Just on Cuba alone he made several major errors: he should have resisted the emasculated Bay Of Pigs fiasco, should have just suborned Castro, should have revealed the Russian missiles sooner and should have made a tough deal with K yielding Turkish missiles for a better quid pro quo. In a way, the JFK legend was lucky he was assassinated. He could have screwed up more, and might have been beaten in 1964 by a republican. 735394@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:33:33 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735390 So what if Clavos insulted Pablo. If Pablo writes things which are not true than he should be insulted grammatically! Right? Clavos' attitude of attacking grammatically to undermine what a person says politically is common usage on internet blogs by those who want to do it. Go for it Clavos. Pablo does not have feelings. 735390@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 06:42:54 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735389 Terry: I noticed myself in earlier blogging [on this article] how Clavo insulted Pablo for some small quotation error. Why worry about it I thought? Clavo has issues probably. Pablo never responded. He took the high road. I would suggest doing the same. Go up 15 comments and see what Clavo said. It is better to ignore negativity. Responding to Clavo gives him what he wants. "Ignorance breeds ignorance". 735389@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 06:34:01 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735388 Clavos, Mark's comments about the Kennedy period were much more true to life than your inserts. I am a historian at Univ. of TX. ;I know the subject matter! I NOW see how you reinserted his insert with the paragraph breaks. I missed that small tidbit the first time I saw the article. I thought you made his insert. Sorry I goofed... Your inserts are reitorating what is said on numerous websites regarding Vietnam. My advice? Try being less insecure on the net about Dan Miller and Pablo and Mark, and be more knowleageable in book smarts. And if you are not knowledgeable, for God sake read a book! Learn your own information. Vietnam websites have erroneous facts. 735388@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 06:06:12 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735368 Commenters: I also saw the comments saying that Obama has potential greatness. How? What is missing with Obama is JFK heroism. I think people reach when it comes to Obama. But who does have the Kennedy heroism? John McCain! Joseph. 735368@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:12:09 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735367 Terry, Actually, those words are Mark's, in comment #55. I merely separated them into paragraphs to show him how it's done, as he apparently doesn't know how. I definitely do not think Obama will be a "great president" if he's elected. 735367@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 02:04:15 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735366 Clavos, if people think Obama could be a great President than why are his numbers so close to McCains? He has not broken free. If he was seen as another Kennedy or Roosevelt he would be winning by 30 points. 735366@blogcritics.org Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:55:55 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735320 Clavos, Very good job with the paragraphs. Thank you. Take care. 735320@blogcritics.org Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:55:30 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735318 Here, Mark: Oh no I am not a historian. Not by a long shot. I have read about the Kennedys for years, but a historian would be much more complete historically than I have been. I was just commenting on Dan Miller's article since it was very interesting and complete, and the comments sections led us to ask about Kennedy in comparison to Obama. Incidentally, Someone else told me about the paragraph breaks and how I do not use many. I have that problem often on the internet. By the way, I do think Obama has great qualities. The trip to the Middle East was great, but I think the speech in Berlin was a bit presumptuous for a Presidential Candidate- unprecedented. But that is not really a big deal. I will vote for him. I think he will make a fine President, and he looks like a good man. As a man and leader, Senator Obama looks like he could be a great President like President Kennedy was. That is why people in the country and elsewhere seem to be excited. As someone once said about JFK "it is not the feeling that he was great in 1960, but the feeling of potential greatness that really got people excited". Take care. See? It's easy. Try it. 735318@blogcritics.org Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:23:13 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735313 Oh no I am not a historian. Not by a long shot. I have read about the Kennedys for years, but a historian would be much more complete historically than I have been. I was just commenting on Dan Miller's article since it was very interesting and complete, and the comments sections led us to ask about Kennedy in comparison to Obama. Incidentally, Someone else told me about the paragraph breaks and how I do not use many. I have that problem often on the internet. By the way, I do think Obama has great qualities. The trip to the Middle East was great, but I think the speech in Berlin was a bit presumptuous for a Presidential Candidate- unprecedented. But that is not really a big deal. I will vote for him. I think he will make a fine President, and he looks like a good man. As a man and leader, Senator Obama looks like he could be a great President like President Kennedy was. That is why people in the country and elsewhere seem to be excited. As someone once said about JFK "it is not the feeling that he was great in 1960, but the feeling of potential greatness that really got people excited". Take care. 735313@blogcritics.org Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:33:36 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735309 JFK did not like politics? He was so good at it! He didn't seem very shy. 735309@blogcritics.org Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:19:12 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735115 Very perceptive comments from Mr. Giolli. He either is a historian or works for the Kennedy Library! One complaint however: Paragraph breaks would help me read it. But I enjoyed it. I do not think I ever heard JFK described that way. Sort of makes sense. 735115@blogcritics.org Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:51:28 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/16/212103.php#comment-735113 I believe the myth matched reality with President Kennedy. I think he was great in many ways. His spirit and his committment to this country were unmatched in his time, and his aloof and introspective way was something we had not seen ever. He was a very curious man who learned constantly and never stopped growing; which is the great thing about the Kennedys in general. As Arthur Schlesinger Jr. said about President Kennedy, he was an "idealist without illusions". What he gave the country from 1960-1963 was invaluable and not possible under any other President. It is hard to put spirit and charisma and leadership on paper, but he was all of that and more. If people read about the Kennedys, you can see how unique John Kennedy was as a leader and statesman. He had aspirations to teach or write when he was younger, rather than politics. Politics was something which was expected of his older brother Joe (who was a delegate to the 1940 convention). When Joe died, Jack was obligated to run for office-although I do not think he was forced to run. Jack Kennedy was more aloof and shy than most of the Kennedys. From my reading, I am not sure Jack Kennedy was a lover of politics. I do not think he loved serving in Congress or the Senate really. I think winning the White House made all the difference for him and excited him, and with all his intelligence and skills, that is where his greatness came out. He did not like the dealings of politics or the backroom talk or the back slapping, but he knew that the political machine could get him to be President in the long run so he dealt with it- The Presidency JFK said was "where he could do the most good for the most people" as his friend and aide Dave Powers said. As President, he excelled and that was where he was at his best. I think President Kennedy had to be in the top spot to excell in politics, otherwise he would have been bored. His brother Teddy on the other hand loves politics, which is evident in his 46 years in the Senate. Either way is great, I am just explaing how I think President Kennedy was. Many books talk of JFK beaming with pride watching Teddy mingle in crowds. He had said Teddy was the best politician in the family. If I had to put one quality of President Kennedy down which made him different from most politicians it is his aloofness. His presidency was unique because he did not see the world as a politician. I think he actually saw the world the way it really was. He loved books and understood what a book meant and knew what the writer was saying. Most of us read books, but most people do not love them like John Kennedy. This ability to see what a person means probably helped him understand the country as a spectator. A lot of politicians see the world as what is their reality and not the people who elected them. I think President Kennedy had a unique perspective into the country and people and his time. I think he was keen on people, and his instincts about them were exact on most every step he made. He was very needed in 1960 as in anytime; he knew what the people wanted instead of most politicians, who do things for what they themselves want and for the political gain or loss. When he died, the perspective he had of the nation of greatness was lost. We went back to LBJ, who was a career politician and did things the Washington way. I wrote way too much. 735113@blogcritics.org Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:17:22 EDT