The Trial of the Chicago 7, JFK Symposium

The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) directed by Aaron Sorkin - Eddie Redmayne as Tom Hayden

-Abbie Hoffman: Let me ask you something…You think Chicago would’ve gone differently if Kennedy got the nomination?

-Tom Hayden: Do I… [chuckles] Yeah. Yes, I do. I think the Irish guys would have sat down with Daley.

-Abbie Hoffman: I think so too. That’s why I was wondering, weren’t you just a little bit happy when the bullet ripped through his head? No Chicago, no Tom Hayden.

-Tom Hayden: I was one of the pallbearers, you fucking animal!

An International Symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy was held on October 17-19, 2013 at Duquesne University, The Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law. Jim DiEugenio was one of the participants.

Jim DiEugenio: When I gave the first talk in 2013 at the Wecht Conference, I got a long standing ovation. As I noted, in the Algeria speech, John Kennedy warned about the possible explosion of Muslim fundamentalism in that area. Therefore he worked with men who he thought were more secular and progressive. And against monarchs like King Saud and the Shah. Well, who was responsible for the eventual explosion of Muslim fundamentalism there that Kennedy so feared? John McCloy! It was McCloy, being paid by David Rockefeller, who lobbied Jimmy Carter's advisors to convince the president to do something he did not want to do: let the Shah into America for medical treatment. But before Carter caved, he asked the meeting, "Alright, but I wonder what you guys are going to advise me to do when they invade our embassy and take our employees hostage?" You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried! That's how bad McCloy was. He also helped bring us Reagan. In 1963, David Rockefeller wanted to meet with JFK about overthrowing the government of Brazil. Kennedy refused to meet Rockefeller. After his death, LBJ took the meeting. The next year, the CIA arranged a coup in Brazil. Who was their point man? John McCloy. While he was sitting on the Warren Commission! Does that not define a conflict of interest? Many of us feel that John McCloy and Allen Dulles were the real centers of power on the Warren Commission. I have already indicated what McCloy did with Rockefeller and the CIA and Brazil in April of 1964. Well, guess what? Allen Dulles did something just as compromising in that same month. He decided to visit Harry Truman in Missouri. Why? He did not like that anti CIA column that Truman published in December 1963. Where Truman recommended the CIA's operational arm be severed and it revert to intelligence gathering only. In fact, Dulles actually wanted Truman to retract the essay. Truman would not. So Dulles wrote a memo to CIA trying to get others who had influence with the former president to convince him to do so. It turns out that although Truman's anti CIA column was published a month after the JFK assassination, through his papers, we learn that the rough draft was completed on December 11th. But it was started on December 1st! Considering the fact that Truman had to have thought about it before committing anything to paper, this brings the provenance of the essay to about one week after JFK was killed. As I said, the meeting ended unsuccessfully for Dulles, since Truman was not going to retreat. Dulles now walked to the door and praised the new CIA director John McCone. But he had not mentioned Kennedy yet. He now did, in a truly startling way. He now mentioned the "false attacks" on CIA in relation to Vietnam and how Kennedy had repudiated these attacks! What could Dulles be talking about here? And why bring this up with Truman? He has to be speaking about the columns published in October of 1963 by Arthur Krock and Richard Starnes. They both spoke about the rising power of the CIA, especially in relation to Vietnam policy. Krock's source called the CIA influence in Vietnam a "malignancy". One which the White House could not control. 

Both articles spoke about an inevitable Seven Days in May scenario, except the coup of the American president would originate with the CIA, not the Pentagon. Now, contravening Dulles, I know of no source that says Kennedy disowned those columns. But I do know of some who say that, not only did he not object, he was an off the record source. After all, Krock was a close friend of his father Joe Kennedy. Therefore, Dulles was trying to dupe Truman by deceiving him. But if these are the columns he was referring to, then his actions are even more revealing. Especially because it was he who brought up Kennedy's name personally in regards to them. Dulles' comments and actions--his personal visit, the bid for retraction, the bringing up of Kennedy's name while investigating his murder--all of these imply that Dulles thought Truman wrote the column due to the former president's suspicions about the CIA, Kennedy's murder and the Vietnam War, which LBJ was now in the process of escalating. What makes this even more interesting is this. If one looks at the first wave of essays and books on the JFK case, which will begin in 1965, no one connected those dots: Vietnam, the Krock/Starnes columns, Kennedy's murder, at that time. Dulles was doing it at least ten years before anyone else did. By trying to get Truman to retract, was Dulles making sure no one else would connect the dots that early? If so, as prosecutors like Vincent Bugliosi say, this displays "consciousness of guilt". "After two weeks of debate, Kennedy was the only guy in the White House refusing to commit combat troops." (John Newman, JFK and Vietnam, p. 138) Kennedy's foreign policy reforms were all overturned by LBJ and the CIA. And then hammered into the ground by Nixon and Kissinger. 

Which is why the late Jonathan Kwitny wrote his excellent book Endless Enemies. In the book Virtual JFK, it is revealed that LBJ understood he was breaking with Kennedy on Vietnam. And he then tried to cover up that fact! The record of the McNamara meeting in Hawaii, May '63 was finally declassified by the ARRB in 1997. It was a bombshell. So much so that it convinced the NY Times (Tim Weiner, December 23, 1997) that Kennedy was planning to get out of Vietnam. The thesis of John Newman's book is that Kennedy did understand what was happening in Vietnam. I mean surely after the battle of Ap Bac, because his State Department representatives were in country at the time. As John Newman states, Kennedy was essentially going to hoist the hawks on their own petard. That is, since they said we were winning, then we could withdraw. Even though Kennedy knew that was not the case. Which is why he was telling McNamara to speed up the timetable. "In the final analysis, it's their war," JFK said to Walter Cronkite on 2nd September 1963. This policy brought him in conflict with the Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence Complex. As Arthur Schlesinger pointed out in an interview he gave in 1978, in 1962-63, the CIA and others were attempting to subvert the foreign policy of the Kennedy administration. Kennedy suspected that the CIA was behind the assassination on 1st April, 1963, of Quinim Pholsena, the left-wing Foreign Minister in Laos. This was a heavy blow to Kennedy’s foreign policy: an attempt to create neutral, democratic countries as a buffer to communism. JFK and the Unspeakable by Jim Douglass, Virtual JFK by James Blight, American Tragedy by David Kaiser, Death of a Generation by Howard Jones and Lessons in Disaster by Gordon Goldstein - These all books agree with John Newman's main thesis. Namely that Kennedy was planning on leaving Vietnam, his assassination altered the intent, and Johnson then reversed what JFK was going to do. In fact, Virtual JFK offers documentary evidence that Johnson knew he was reversing Kennedy's withdrawal plan and he'd enlisted McNamara in his deception. LBJ did not have any of the sophistication or insight into foreign affairs, demonstrated with my opening powerpoint, that Kennedy had. 

As Fredrick Logevall shows in his book Choosing War, LBJ was much more the classic Cold Warrior who would have been at home with Foster Dulles' banal bromides about the red specter of communism threatening to spread from Indochina to the Philippines to Hawaii to California if Saigon fell. Therefore LBJ was much more in tune with what the CIA and the military wanted in Vietnam, that is direct American intervention. When Kennedy learned of the deaths of Diem and his brother, he "leaped to his feet and rushed from the room with a look of shock and dismay on his face...." (Douglass, p. 211) He then did two things: he recalled Henry Cabot Lodge from Saigon for the purpose of firing him. And he told NSC assistant Michael Forrestal that there was going to be a complete review of Vietnam policy. Neither of these ever happened. Why? Because Kennedy was murdered that same month. LBJ told his assistant Bill Moyers he was going to give the generals what they wanted and Vietnam was not going to slip away like China did. In a declassified phone call of February 20, 1964, Johnson told McNamara, "I always thought it was foolish for you to make any statements about withdrawing [off Vietnam]. I thought it was bad psychologically. But you and the president thought otherwise." In other words, Johnson was aware of what Kennedy and McNamara were planning a withdrawal. Kennedy really did not like Saudi Arabia or the Shah. None of the foreign policy for the next 50 years (including current) would have happened on JFK's watch... it simply wasn't his style. It's interesting to trace the rise of the nutty neo-cons. It actually started under former Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford. Ford continued with Kissinger as Secretary of State. But he then promoted Rumsfeld and Cheney. Those two felt that Kissinger/Nixon detente with Russia was too liberal. Too much like Kennedy. In 1968, General James M. Gavin stated: There has been much speculation about what President Kennedy would have done in Vietnam had he lived. Having discussed military affairs with him often and in detail for 15 years, I know he was totally opposed to the introduction of combat troops in southeast Asia. His public statements just before his murder support this view. Paul B. Fay, undersecretary of the Navy under JFK, stated: If John Kennedy had lived, our military involvement in Vietnam would have been over by the end of 1964. To aide Larry Newman, Kennedy said: “The first thing I do when I’m re-elected, I’m going to get the Americans out of Vietnam. Exactly how I’m going to do it, right now, I don’t know.” And then we have John McCain who accidentally called the JFK assassination an 'intervention' in the 2008 debates. McCains' father was very high up in the Navy. In fact, he was an Admiral who was off the coast of Vietnam. He was very much involved with the actual bombing and blockading of Indochina. Look him up in William Shawcross' Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon, and the Destruction of Cambodia (2002) Source:educationforum.ipbhost.com

The Devil is in the Details (Malcolm Blunt & Alan Dale's conversations on JFK)

This volume is a collection of ten transcribed conversations, recorded 2014 - 2019, between Assassination Archives and Research Center's executive director Alan Dale, and the esteemed British intelligence analyst, Malcolm Blunt. These unscripted conversations elevate the discussion of key assassination investigation areas well beyond the well-worn paths familiar to those who choose to study President Kennedy's life, his career in public service, the Cold War context of his presidency, the true circumstances and meaning of his death, and the alleged facts associated with the U.S. government's investigations into his assassination. Malcolm Blunt is regarded within the assassination research community as an invaluable resource on the CIA's internal systems and management authorities as they existed during the 1950s and '60s; he has invested more time and greater focus than perhaps any other individual on the JFK records held at the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park, MD.

"Malcolm Blunt is the researcher’s researcher. He turned me on to the ARRB’s hunt for missing Church Committee records, the suppressed story of Oswald and Customs in New Orleans, and more. Like that of Peter Dale Scott and John Newman, Malcolm’s work digging in the mines of CIA routing sheets and information flow gives us valuable insight into Oswald’s connections to U.S. intelligence and how he came to take the fall for Kennedy’s murder in Dallas. Malcolm and Alan Dale in these interviews shine a flashlight in the fog-laden graveyard where the bodies are buried." –Rex Bradford, President of Mary Ferrell Foundation 

"Malcolm Blunt's brilliant work in the deep caves of the National Archives has opened up new perspectives on the Kennedy case for other researchers. Alan Dale's deft questioning of him in this book will help others to emulate his achievements." -Peter Dale Scott, author of Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, Dallas '63: The First Deep State Revolt Against the White House, and The American Deep State

"The devil is in the details -- also the light of truth. For nearly three decades, Malcolm Blunt has been digging through stacks of U.S. government documents and illuminating their meaning. It took an English citizen, working in his spare time and sidetracking his holidays, to burrow deeply into the hidden and hiding-in-plain-sight facts of the John F. Kennedy assassination -- the most earth-shaking American crime of the 20th Century. Countless Kennedy scholars, authors and independent researchers have come to depend on Blunt for eye-popping discoveries that previously eluded them. I count myself among this crowd." -David Talbot, author of the New York Times bestsellers, The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA and the Rise of America's Secret Government and Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years

“It is the mission of the Assassination Archives and Research Center to obtain, preserve and disseminate information on political assassinations. The founding fathers of this country understood that in order to be their own governors a people must “arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.” British researcher Malcolm Blunt’s knowledge of the internal operations of Cold War intelligence agencies is peerless. This collection of conversations with Alan Dale is a fascinating and groundbreaking penetration of the secrecy which warps the roles of all major players on the global stage." -James H. Lesar, president of Assassination Archives and Research Center

"America does not know that over 2 million pages of documents were declassified 22 years ago on the JFK assassination. Those pages redefined the scope and the nature of President Kennedy's murder. Malcolm Blunt is one of the few who has read and collected many of those documents. Not many people know who he is, but for those who do know, he is a hidden hero in the Kennedy case." -James DiEugenio, author of Destiny Betrayed

"Have you ever wanted to be a fly on the wall listening-in on a conversation between two incredibly intelligent, informed and knowledgeable people as they discuss the CIA, the national security state during the Cold War, how the National Archives, maintains and hides records and documents, how the government hides and keeps its secrets, and the Kennedy assassination? Here’s your chance. Don't miss it." -Dan Hardway, Attorney; Former staff investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations 

"Malcolm Blunt’s encyclopedic knowledge of the inner workings of the CIA during the era of the Cold War is unrivaled. He is the Rosetta Stone for coded intelligence agency cables. Alan Dale’s discussions with Blunt offer an astonishing range of depth and details essential to anyone with an interest in understanding President Kennedy's murder and the hidden machinations of U.S. spy bureaucracies." -Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., author of American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family

"Malcolm Blunt, an English psychiatric support manager turned forensic analyst, taught me a crucial art: how to understand the flow of information inside the CIA. I thought I understood something of the subject, but Blunt took me to a new level of insight. Alan Dale's fascinating interviews evoke Blunt's ingenious methodology and his wry humor. For anyone who wants to gain a granular understanding of the CIA's paper flow in the 1950s and 1960s, Dale's aptly-named volume, The Devil is in the Details, is essential." -Jefferson Morley, author of Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the Kennedy Years; and The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Angleton

"The most penetrating, influential interviews present not as interrogations, but as dialogues between a deeply informed questioner and a topically masterful subject. Success may be measured in direct proportion to the trust and respect that develop to bridge the gap, so to speak – qualities delivered in abundance by Alan Dale and Malcolm Blunt throughout these historic exchanges. The light they shed on the JFK assassination and associated operations is unlike any illumination you have yet to experience." -Charles R. Drago, co-founder of the original JFK Truth and Amnesty Commission (1997), author of the Introduction to George Michael Evica’s “A Certain Arrogance” (2011) and Afterword to H.P. Albarelli, Jr.’s “Coup in Dallas” (2020) 

"The name “Malcolm Blunt” is synonymous with phrases such as “trusted source” and “detailed insight” in relation to JFK records. That became apparent to me long before I knew anything else about him. It is not mere hyperbole. His abilities in these areas were always going to bring him into the sunlight as the most well-known private source of documents and interpretations of same, outside of the Mary Ferrell Foundation. No mean feat for a lone and modest individual without even a website to call home! With much gratitude, I recommend these interviews to all who care." -Greg R. Parker, author of Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cold War

"When one studies the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, one quickly realizes that there were really two assassinations. One was the assassination of the man. And the other was the assassination of the truth. With The Devil is in the Details, Alan Dale presents a series of conversations with perhaps the utmost expert on this second assassination, Malcolm Blunt. Rich in detail, these conversations with Blunt unveil an aspect to the Kennedy assassination unseen but to a select few. But they're not without their humor. In reading these interviews, in fact, one can't help feeling like a fly on the wall eavesdropping on the most interesting conversation at a D.C. hotel." -Pat Speer, author and producer of JFK: The Mysterious Death of Number 35 

"Malcolm Blunt has tried to familiarize himself with every JFK document in the archives in College Park. One of the best things that happened to me as a JFK researcher was befriending Malcolm Blunt. Malcolm and I were there from the earliest days of the newly formed Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) which had the power to acquire and declassify JFK assassination records. No one had spent more time following the ARRB than I and no one has spent more time in Archives II acquiring and reading the documents than Malcolm. Almost everything I would want to do as a JFK researcher Malcolm has already done." -David Kaiser, author of The Road to Dallas

One of the people Vincent Salandria had accused - Jacob Cohen - pops up periodically in John Kelin's book, Praise from a Future Generation: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy and the First Generation Critics of the Warren Report. "Between Thanksgiving and Christmas of 1966, there was a debate arranged in Boston about the Warren Report. Epstein was invited to be a participant, but he declined the invitation. Vince Salandria did participate and his main opponent was a young scholar named Jacob Cohen. Cohen had presented an article defending the Commission in the July 11, 1966 issue of The Nation." John Kelin describes Cohen in some more detail. "Cohen was the Yale professor who had published “The Vital Documents” in The Nation the previous summer. He had written a second article, “The Warren Commission Report And Its Critics,” which was in the then-current issue of Frontier magazine. He had also just appeared in a television discussion with Jones, Mark Lane, Leo Sauvage, and Harold Weisberg called “A Reexamination of the Warren Report.” His book, Honest Verdict, had not yet been published but was still being mentioned as a work-in-progress." In November 1975, Cohen was cited as an expert in a NYT hit piece on Jim Garrison, written by James Phelan. In June 1992, Cohen attacked Oliver Stone's JFK. John Kelin describes Cohen as a 'Yale professor', but Cohen had left Yale in 1960, six years prior to the debate. From 1964, to 1968, Cohen was on leave of absence from teaching, and was serving on the staff of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). But prior to 1964, Cohen was at another academic institution. It was a place he'd spent the four years prior to his work with CORE, and it was a place he'd spend the next five decades at, after he finished his work with CORE. He was a member of the Citizens Committee for a Free Cuba, alongside Virginia Prewitt and Hal Hendrix, both of whom had worked with David Atlee Phillips. He served as an advisor to Lyndon Johnson, and worked alongside Walt Rostow, acting as a consultant on Vietnam policy. He also personally drafted letters of advice to the President on the running of the war, and wrote speeches for President Johnson. He maintained high level communications with the CIA. He asked for and received memorandums from George A. Carver, the CIA official who worked as head of the CIA's National Planning Task Force on Vietnam. When he visited Carver in person, memorandums about the visit were sent directly to Richard Helms. He warned Lyndon Johnson that something should be done about the critics of the Warren Commission, and sent a detailed memo to Johnson to that effect. He warned Vincent Salandria: "You'll have to be killed." He sent a letter to the Times Literary Supplement attacking Warren Commission critics. His letter closely matched CIA Dispatch 1035-960, and what he wrote was later used as the basis for an early Time magazine article that defended the official story. He returned to the subject of the assassination in articles throughout the 70's, and continued to attack researchers of the subject. The institute where Cohen took up residence was Brandeis University, and the Dean of the Faculty at the time Cohen arrived was John P. Roche. Roche owed his career in the Johnson administration to Bill Moyers, who he'd known for some years prior, and who had recommended Roche for his position as an advisor to government. When Cohen appeared as a prominent critic, and ultimately debated Vincent Salandria, he likely had an important supporter in government - John Roche. Roche was also LBJ's point man on attacking Bobby Kennedy. In an interview, John Roche emphasised how much he detested Bobby Kennedy, and noted how he’d been in near fistfights with RFK twice at opposite ends of the decade. In 1968, there’s a quote from John Roche telling Johnson that MLK should be ‘destroyed’. According to Ghosts in the White House: LBJ, RFK and the Assassination of JFK by Michael W. Schuyler, Cohen finished this conversation saying ‘of course, John Roche hated Robert Kennedy even more’. Jacob Cohen, more than almost any other academic, has devoted his life to protect the official story, and to attack researchers of the subject. He began doing this in 1966, and continued until he retired from academic life a half century later in 2017. 

“Carolyn threw Michael Bergin in John’s face,” the Hollywood producer Clifford Streit told Vanity Fair. “I think she used Michael Bergin in any way she could to get a reaction out of John. The only one in the world who thought Carolyn would choose Michael over John was John.” Michael Bergin's memoir is discredited, as well as the crude attempts to smear the beautiful love story of JFK's son and Carolyn Jeanne Bessette. Dottie Randazzo: "Some things just don't add up in Bergin's book. I mean you are going to write a book about your relationship with someone who has passed away, and can't defend herself. On top of that, many names of people in the book are made up, which the author admits to. At the end Bergin says that he wrote the book to clear up any bad rumors about Carolyn. He doesn't mention that he's making money off the book. Throughout the entire book he is chasing money. Another example of an incident which doesn't ring true: You go on this romantic vacation with Carolyn to the Florida Keys. She won't come out of the room for a week, so no one sees the two of you together. She destroys the pictures that were taken of the two of you. Why wouldn't she put the pictures in the box with all the other mementos that she kept that had your name or picture on it? Such a disappointment! The Other Man consists of Michael Bergin primarily painting his autobiography. His relationship with Carolyn Bessette & JFK, Jr. is given little or no detailed info. It seemed Bergin wrote his book as an outlet to whine on end about his life. Carolyn Bessette never considered him her boyfriend, she never told anyone they were dating, and she kept herself very closed off him. Michael Bergin's dislike for John Kennedy Jr. does shine throughout, dislike and jealousy. Maybe because John Jr was really a gentleman? Or a better lover than him, despite Bergin's (and Gordon Henderson) malicious hints? Source: educationforum.ipbhost.com

A Brief and Shining Moment with JFK Jr and Carolyn Bessette, Matt Berman asks vote for Biden

Patrick Petty (stylist of Mark Wahlberg and the Funky Bunch) opened his first store, House of Culture Shock, on Newbury Street in Boston. Through his daughter, Petty met a young Boston University student named Carolyn Bessette when she went shopping at his boutique. Allegedly, Wahlberg hit on Bessette, but she refused his advances, due probably to his bad reputation. Later, it was she who introduced his client, Mark Wahlberg, to Calvin Klein for those career-changing underwear ads. Neil Kraft and Herb Ritts greenlighted Wahlberg for the campaign, following it with Calvin Klein television advertisements. Magazine and television promotions sometimes featured Wahlberg exclusively or accompanied by model Kate Moss (with whom he had an affair in 1992). Annie Leibovitz also shot a famous session of Mark Wahlberg in CK underwear for Vanity Fair's annual Hall of Fame issue. Although Carolyn Bessette was credited for enhancing the careers of Kate Moss, Mark Wahlberg, and Michael Bergin, it was Patrick Demarchelier who supervised the final word with Calvin Klein. 

Marya Tenney: It still catches me off guard when I load my groceries onto the conveyor belt in the checkout line. And there it is, on the magazine rack, squeezed between the claims of the “Best New England Clam Shacks” and “Spectacular 4th of July Jello Desserts,” the faces of Carolyn Bessette Kennedy and her husband John F. Kennedy, Jr., staring back at me from the cover of a magazine. It’s been twenty-one years and I am still surprised by the amount of sadness I feel over Carolyn’s untimely death. In the years immediately following their deaths, the yearly rehashing of the crash, and some newly revealed details about her personality and character offered up by some “friend”, only add to the sadness. After all, what kind of friends did they have who would peddle such stories, whether they were true or not? And yet after twenty-one years they still claim new material to reveal. I have no way to accurately judge the veracity of the gossip about her marriage. But as I’ve read the last two decades worth of articles, I’ve tried to reconcile the woman described in them with the girl I came to know briefly in college. I’ll never forget the first time I saw her. She sat at the back of a classroom in the School of Education at Boston University. She was uncommonly pretty. But it was more than merely pretty. Who is this girl, I thought. She looked like a movie star. Her long golden brown hair cascaded over her shoulder and her ice blue eyes were so light she appeared otherworldly. She hadn’t yet begun to sport the high voltage platinum hair, but she was still stunning. I couldn’t help but stare. Her long legs were casually propped up on the chair in front of her, and her body language conveyed an absolute indifference to the environment. In all fairness, at the time, I too was not particularly interested in the difference between reliability versus validity in educational testing. I just didn’t have the beauty or confidence to be quite so blatant in showing my own lack of edge-of-my-seat fascination. Despite the fact that we both loved children, Carolyn and I chose the field of education less because of a passion, but more likely because we were daughters of educators. As luck would have it, and because neither of us had any friends in the class, we were thrown together on a project to research and analyze the California Achievement Test. A third person was assigned to our group. This student was very talkative and shared, without being asked, her personal experience with anorexia and bulimia. I have no recollection as to how the subject even came up. At some point, Carolyn gently but unmistakably kicked me under the table. I glanced sideways at her. A barely perceptible eye roll. As this long monologue by our colleague went on, Carolyn continued to make conspiratorial eye contact with me. As the three of us chatted, I got a sense of what it felt like to be “chosen” by someone like Carolyn. I admit that I liked the way it felt. When the other student left, Carolyn practically exploded with the thoughts she had not spoken. She went on to tell me that she knew a lot about the subject of anorexia as one of her sisters had it and nothing this girl had said rang true at all. I had no way to know who to believe but I didn’t much care. I was just relieved to be the one Carolyn was kicking conspiratorially under the table and not the object of her derision. The fact that she had rejected the other girl and was inviting me into her orbit more profound. I was in awe of her beauty and confidence, and so painfully aware of my lack thereof, that I was flattered that she seemed to like me. And then she did something I wouldn’t even consider ever doing. She grabbed my black daily planner, confidently flipped to the back, and jotted down her name and number in the address section under B. And so began our friendship. 

Carolyn was a textbook “Queen Bee.”  She was popular and beautiful and dated only the “BMOC”, the Big Men on Campus. They were rich or athletes. At Boston University, athletes were held in higher esteem than the wealthy because being wealthy was pretty common there. And among the athletes, hockey players had the highest status of all. It was in this arena that my budding friendship with Carolyn hit a roadblock. Carolyn was dating a hockey player. Some women are Queen Bees. And wherever there are queen bees, there are “wannabees.” This phenomenon sort of applies to the crowd that I hung with at the time I met Carolyn. My closest friends, a completely different group of young women, were reasonably attractive and they wanted to date hockey players. It’s just a Boston University kind of thing. While my friends engaged in flirtations, the hockey players didn’t actually seem to date my wannabee friends. Carolyn had, in her serious relationship with the captain of the hockey team, what my friends wanted. I, of course, was way outside this problem in that I wasn’t even attractive enough to be a wannabee; I was more like a “wannabee in training”. What complicated the situation is that the members of the wannabee circle that I traveled in did not like Carolyn. They did not like her at all. Like all groupies, the wannabees occasionally followed the hockey team to away games. Girlfriends of hockey players of course did this as well. At one such away game, I ran right into Carolyn as I left the restroom. She seemed thrilled to see me, which she conveyed with an affectionate, familiar squeeze of my arm. What was I doing there, she happily wanted to know. She clearly was completely unaware of my wannabee in training status. I explained vaguely that some “friends” thought it might be a fun road trip. I talked amiably with Carolyn but became increasingly uncomfortable as I noticed my “real friends” were watching me from a distance with great interest. We parted with a warm clasping of hands and assurances that we’d see each other next week in class. She went into the ladies room and I went back to my pals, feeling inexplicably sheepish. I was met with laughter and some good natured teasing comments about my apparent “new best friend, Carolyn.” We were all amused by the situation. I briefly wondered if Carolyn’s friendliness toward me would raise me up in the wannabee hierarchy or with my already admittedly lowly status within this group, cast me out entirely. As it turned out, at the time, it did neither. I continued with this uneasy semi-friendship with Carolyn. We greeted each other warmly when we saw each other in class or a pub. At the time it seemed too complicated and slightly disloyal to my so-called friends. From afar Carolyn was cooly captivating; up close she was warm and made me feel well-liked and important. She was physically responsive when talking to people; reaching out and touching and looking a person straight in the eye. She could be kind of haughty but I also experienced her being incredibly warm. She was both distant and yet approachable. I witnessed her having loud public disagreements with her college boyfriend. She often had to put up with women pursuing him, so I kind of get that. Undoubtedly, she had some special qualities, she was really all these things long before she ever married America’s Prince and I suspect she was all these things after she married him as well. But the various books and articles produced don’t always tell that interpretation. She has, unfortunately, been defined almost solely on the basis of her choice of husband. And it doesn’t seem fair to reduce her to that element. Some years back, I found that daily planner from my college days. There on the pages in back, I found the page where Carolyn had written her name and phone number. I couldn’t help but wonder about the “choice” in friends that I had made almost 30 years earlier. That all too familiar reflection of the road not taken in friendships over a lifetime. Carolyn, it turns out, had in addition to some loyal and true friends, an inordinate number of people who, for reasons unfathomable to me, now share or perhaps even fabricate stories about her. It always makes me wonder what kind of friends do this? What kind of friend unnecessarily shares an unflattering detail or, worse, a purely made up story about a deceased friend who can no longer defend herself? I sure as hell wouldn’t. And what of the friends that I “chose” over of her? Holding that page with Carolyn’s round scrawl,  I began to actually think about them. Not a single one of those girls from that time is my friend today. I thought about the fact that I was not invited to even one of their weddings. Not one. None of those people came to my father’s funeral nor sent a card. None of them were there to comfort me through the long illness and eventual death of my sister and brother. Having read numerous accounts, even amongst the salacious ones, of Carolyn’s great capacity for caring and loyalty to her friends in times of need, I couldn’t help but wonder if maybe she would have been there for me. As I tossed my old daily planner in the trash, I tore out the page on which she had written her name and number. I put it in a cardboard box along with other loose paper memories and closed the top. As it stands, today, I don’t really miss the group of friends who were part of my earlier life, my college days, at all. I obviously could never breach that inner circle and no one really needs “friends” like them. But had I accepted Carolyn’s invitation to be her friend, and had a relationship developed, I think I would miss a friend like her quite a lot. Source: maryakosstenney.wordpress.com

Jefferson Arrington (a driver for RMA Chauffeured Transportation in Rockville, Maryland): I had been driving a limousine for eight years, and I was assigned as a chauffeur for John Kennedy Jr and his wife Carolyn in 1988. The son of JFK said to me the first day: "Hi, I'm John Kennedy. Nice to meet you." I had been sent to pick him up at Signature Aviation in Washington, where private aircraft fly in to the Reagan National Airport. My passenger, JFK Jr., was in town for an event at the White House. The occasion was the premiere of the HBO miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon" (1998). Because of his father's initiation of the American space program, Jr. had been invited to the dinner reception and he'd also been asked to make the opening remarks. On the way to his hotel, John Kennedy decided to visit the graves of his parents at Arlington Cemetery. Either people did not recognize him or they just left him alone, because I didn't see anyone approach him. John stayed at the graves for a while, and when he returned to the car, I took him to his hotel. In mid-afternoon, we drove out to the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, where we were to pick up Carolyn Bessette. John introduced me to her: "Jefferson, this is my wife, Carolyn," he said. My impression at the time was how very nice, how normal, these people were. She was lovely and dressed in a classic way. I remember thinking she was not a raving beauty in the traditional sense, but a very pretty woman, and she was exceptionally nice. As we drove back to the hotel, the two of them talked and held hands. John took the opportunity of this 20-minute drive to read his speech to Carolyn. As a result, I got to hear it before anyone at the White House dinner. As you might imagine, the speech was very well written, with some quotes from President Kennedy woven in. When John finished reading, Carolyn leaned forward and kissed him, telling him how much she liked it. There was a slight pause, and John finally spoke. "Now when I quote my father, I hear his voice." Again, Carolyn gave him a warm hug and kiss. I felt as if I had been in on a very personal, wonderful moment. Later that evening, we pulled into the White House grounds at the east entrance, by a small fountain. Despite a large exodus from the White House at around 11:15 PM, the Kennedys did not emerge until well after midnight. On our short trip back to the hotel, the couple spoke of what a great evening it had been. John commented he had not recognized any of the White House. Just what he meant became clear a year later. President Clinton had given John and Carolyn a tour of the private quarters he shared with Hillary Rodham Clinton. Supposedly, John did not like the new approach of the Clintons at the White House. I remember the wonderful brightness of John and Carolyn. It was for me a brush with greatness, a chance to be a witness to a small bit of history. The morning after the White House event, I arrived at the hotel at about 5:20 AM to pick John up for an early flight. When we arrived at National Airport, John hopped out of the car and grabbed his small bag. He made a point to stop, shake my hand and thank me. He also took an envelope out of his pocket and said: "My wife and I would like you to have this." I thanked him and he was off. I really hoped the envelope would hold a simple signed note. But instead, it held a very generous, very thoughtful tip. He had taken the time to give me an envelope, which seemed so in character for this fellow. After all, he had been John Kennedy all his life, and he was very good at it. —The Day John Died (2007) by Christopher Andersen

"My father told me what sons of bitches big businessmen were, but I never believed it until now." (JFK Jr reflecting on his difficulties with Hachette Publishers).

Matt Berman (Instagram, October 2020): The Donald Trump cover was the worst cover for George magazine, hands down. This photoshoot of Donald and Melania Trump took place shortly after John Kennedy Jr's fatal plane crash. I was in the midst of negotiating an exit package with Hachette, where I'd worked for eight years, I missed John and I was extremely depressed and distracted. I was feeling sick and I needed a rest. I couldn't find a taxi, and took the R train headed downtown. By 23rd Street, I had chills and felt lightheaded. On the 8th street train platform, a stranger looking down at me, said: Don't move, you're bleeding badly." I'd had a fall and I had collapsed headfirst into the corner of a metal column after exiting my train. "Extreme dehydration," the doctor explained, as he stitched my forehead. I learned that Hachette had decided to continue producing the magazine with a new editor who forbade our archived photoshoots for covers. This new editor said he was excited to feature Donald Trump. I was sent with my assistant Michele for a photoshoot and I couldn't decline. The Trump Tower was like the tackiest hotel in the world, with gold and marble and crystal overloads, with fake Monet and Renoir paintings. It was quite the contrast to John and Carolyn's downtown loft with its cozy sofas and beers in the fridge. During the shoot, Michele and I stood out of the shooting frame, behind Donald and Melania. It was gross. With John gone, it was all pay to play. Had John been in charge, that photoshoot would never have been produced. John couldn't stand Trump's presence, especially since he had hit on his wife Carolyn at Mar-a-Lago in 1997... Please, vote for Biden!

Depiction of Mental Illness in Film, Taxi Driver

A new study, “Depiction of Mental Illness in Film and Association with Financial and Critical Success“ written by researchers from Stanford University, Yale University, and the University of Connecticut (published on October 22, 2020) finds that movies about mental illness have consistently earned more money, gotten better reviews, and won more Academy Awards than average since as far back as 1977. In recent years, there have been many much-discussed films about mental illness, for example Joker, The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Inside Out, and Silver Linings Playbook. This new study analyzes more than 2,000 movies about mental illness between 1977 and 2019. Example keywords included autism, schizophrenia, bipolar, depression, ADHD, obsessive-compulsive disorder, mental disorder, suicide, mental institution, etc. This filtering resulted in 2,043 movies that had plots involving mental illness. Suicide was by far the most common mental illness-related search term, occurring in 1,114 of these films. The researchers found that the number of movies about mental illness has been increasing by about two films per year since 1977. Though the overall percentage of films about mental illness changed from one year to the next, it consistently remained between 10-20%. 

Likewise, the authors used IMDB ratings and Academy Award nominations (and wins) as proxies for critical success. In terms of critical reception, they found that the average IMDB rating for the mental illness movies was above average for every year from 1977 to 2019. The films depicting mental illness scored an average rating of 6.4, versus 5.9 for films overall. Films about mental illness have also consistently done better than average in terms of Academy Award nominations and wins. Across all of years examined, films about mental illness accounted for 15.7% of all nominations. These films also won 17.2% of awards given out between 1977 and 2019. While their findings indeed indicate a growing interest in movies about mental illness, “there is danger of fetishizing mental health problems, or of poor depictions being celebrated,” they write. “Psychiatrists and mental health providers,” they suggest, “must play a role in shaping future depictions of mental illness in cinema.” Source: www.medrxiv.org

Travis Bickle (Robert DeNiro), is Taxi Driver‘s lonely, alienated “anti-hero.” He wants Betsy (Cybill Shepherd), he’s obsessed with her beauty. But, he has no idea what a woman wants or how to date, let alone to have a relationship with anyone, even his fellow taxi drivers. He’s disconnected. When he makes a real faux pas with Betsy, he must redeem himself and save the world of women from scum. The scum Travis wants to wash away. He must have disconnected long ago. Because Travis knows nothing about pop culture, movies, women, or what makes him tick. “I first saw her at the Campaign Headquarters, wearing a white dress. She appeared like an angel.” The headquarters are Presidential hopeful, Senator Charles Palantine’s (Leonard Harris). He proceeds to tell her his observations of her – yet, really his projections of all he can’t accept in himself: “I watch you. I see people around you, but you’re lonely. Not a happy person. You need something. Maybe a friend.” That’s Travis. He’s the one that needs a friend. “You going to be my friend?” Betsy asks seductively as they sit at a coffee shop: “I had black coffee, apple pie with a slice of melted yellow cheese. She had coffee and fruit salad when she could have had anything she wanted.” He wants her to want him. For all Travis’ unworldliness, he has a fragile self-protective arrogance. Until it is soon “shot down.” The more Travis talks to Betsy, the more disturbed we see his obsessive fantasy is: “You like the guy you work with? I could tell there was no connection. When I walked in there was something between us, an impulse we both were following that gave me the right to talk to you. Otherwise, I would never have had the courage.” Yet Travis’ arrogance covers a deep insecurity. Travis doesn’t have anything in common with Betsy. His mind is lost in disturbed preoccupations. When Senator Palantine gets into his taxi and asks him what bothers him most, Travis goes off: “Clean up this city. It’s a sewer.” Can he count on Palantine? No. Travis can’t count on anyone. Travis’ mind is very split. As quickly as “the angel” entered his life, Betsy’s gone. Another rejection Travis can’t take. 

“Loneliness has followed me my whole life. Bars and cars and everywhere. There’s no escape.” He calls and pleads with Betsy to have dinner or coffee. Sends her flowers. Bouquets of returned flowers pile up in his house; dead. He tries to apologize: “I didn’t know that was the way you felt.” He’s in torment: “The smell of flowers made me sick. Headaches got worse. I think I got stomach cancer.” Travis can’t take her refusals. He storms into headquarters, enraged: “Why won’t you answer my phone calls? You’re going to die in hell like the rest of them.” Clearly, this isn’t his first humiliation: “I realize now she’s just like the others, cold and distant and many people are like that, women for sure, they're like a union." He writes a sad letter to his estranged parents, lying that he’s been seeing a girl named Betsy for a few months. They’d be proud. We know he’s trying to toughen up against self-hate. Maybe saving Iris will redeem him. There’s still the mystery of what he’s training for with his target practices, workouts, and gun maneuvers. But, Travis gets it in his head to save Iris (Jodie Foster), a fourteen-year-old runaway hooker under the spell of Sport (Harvey Keitel) her “lover-pimp.” She jumped in Travis’ cab once and wanted to get away. But, Sport pulled her out.

We might think about Iris as Travis’ innocent, young, self that took a wrong turn, had some very hurtful experiences, went to war, and came back jaded. With a family he didn’t want to be with; didn’t go home to; who were distant and uninviting; without love. Iris is certainly at war inside; young and alone and scared. But, fighting it and fiercely independent for her own reasons. Maybe not so dissimilar to Travis’ lonely alienation. So, when she, again, literally crosses his path, he seizes the opportunity. Travis decides to save her. Can he redeem himself? In his mind? We already know he’s quite confused in his head; misguided about life and how to get things done. And, trauma upon trauma (childhood experiences and the Vietnam war) has set off a lot of buried rage. He doesn’t have any more reasonable sense of the rules of life than Iris does. He tries to talk sense into her. Tells her to go back to her family, she doesn’t belong on the streets with the likes of Sport: “You should be going to school. Going out with boys.” When Iris won’t listen and goes back to Sport, Travis takes matters into his own hands: “You can’t let him do that to other girls, least you. He’s the worst fucking scum on the earth.” After the bloodbath, when the police arrive, Travis has a crazed and happy look on his face. Proud of his accomplishments, he points his fingers at his head, gun-like, as if intends to (or metaphorically did) just kill himself. He’s single-handedly killed off the scum of the city and saved Iris. Iris will now go home. But, what was the real point of his rampage? Is he dying? Dead? 

Travis has become the city’s (and Iris’ parents) revered “Hero.” Is this reality? Or Travis’ grandiose fantasy? We’ll never know. In Travis’ mind, he’s special, better than the rest, better than Palantine (who dropped the ball on washing away the scum.) And, Betsy too now admires Travis for the “hero he is.” She’s his last passenger in Taxi Driver. Flipping the taxi meter, he absolves her completely. Travis rearranges the facts in his head, a typical trait of a schizoid mind. In planning to kill Senator Palantine, he wants to sacrifice him to the cause and make him a martyr. Scorsese confirms this idea by framing Palantine with his hands raised like the statue behind him at Columbus Circle, reminding us of Christ on the cross, the Saint of Martyr’s. Some critics came close but rarely suggested the possibility of Travis’ death. For example, in the March 1979 issue of Le Cinématographe (no. 45), François Cuel is the only one who explicitly alluded to it: "The burnt flowers, Travis’ message to Iris, rather indicate a suicidal ritual that precedes the meticulous preparation for a killing; and in the middle of the blood stains in the hotel, the real Travis, whose wounded leg already gives a cadaverous rigidity, actually dies. The overhead shot negates the ceiling and opens the sky for Travis’ flight."  Even as Travis plots his heroic acts of violence, he worries about how to save Iris. He believes he is just training to be an undercover govern agent, but his concern for Iris suggests otherwise. Travis's many contradictions make him one of the great characters in film history. Source: charactersonthecouch.com

Catching the Wind: Edward Kennedy

By the time Edward Kennedy died, in August 2009, he had represented Massachusetts in the United States Senate for nearly 47 years — longer than any of his brothers had lived. He was eulogized as one of the most important legislators in American history, an assessment reflecting not only the affection he enjoyed on both sides of the aisle, but also genuine awe at his achievements. Over the course of five decades, Ted Kennedy had sponsored nearly 700 bills that became law, and left his imprint on scores of others. The Voting Rights Act of 1965; the Immigration and Nationality Act of that same year; the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 — all bore his influence or were advanced by his efforts. That struggle and its significance are the subjects of “Catching the Wind: Edward Kennedy and the Liberal Hour”, published on 27th October 2020 by Crown Publishing Group, the first installment of a two-volume treatment by Neal Gabler, the author of well-regarded books on Walt Disney and Walter Winchell. Kennedy’s expansive life has yielded no shortage of biographies, but Gabler’s is on its way toward becoming the most complete and ambitious. No less important, as Gabler writes, “there was a joy in him, a great love of people.” He drew them in — whether voters back home or the Southern septuagenarians who ran the Senate — won them over, made them willing, even eager, to support him. He was the most natural politician in his family, a close match in temperament to his grandfather John “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald, who had taught him, Gabler notes, “what empathy meant.” “Catching the Wind” lends a cinematic sweep to Kennedy’s legislative crusades — for example, his noble campaign in 1965 to ban use of the poll tax, that old racist roadblock to the African-American vote, in state elections. (The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, had prohibited its use in federal elections. The year after Kennedy’s effort foundered, the Supreme Court ruled the poll tax unconstitutional at the state level.) Gabler makes these battles exciting and the scenes are often amped up by incantation: “And then Ted quoted at length, great length, from a speech, a remarkable speech,” reads a typical passage. The reader needs no such prodding; the drama, as it develops, is real enough. The swiftness with which Ted Kennedy went from being teased by Republicans as “Little Brother” to becoming the patriarch of a political dynasty — the bearer, as he himself put it, of his martyred brothers’ standard — is unfathomable, however familiar the story remains. In 1968, when Robert was killed in Los Angeles while running for president, Ted was only 36. The pressure upon him to carry forward the campaign was instantaneous: One of Bobby’s aides cornered Ted on the flight that carried his brother’s body back to New York, pleading, “You gotta run.” Kennedy knew himself well enough not to accept a draft — he was deeply depressed, immobilized by grief. But he had lost control over himself and his future. 

Tragedy begat tragedy, and Los Angeles led, in some indirect but inexorable fashion, to Chappaquiddick in July 1969. The death of Mary Jo Kopechne (Kopechne had worked as a campaign aide for his brother, Robert Kennedy) in Ted Kennedy’s car was, as Gabler writes, “indelible — a stain he bore that no amount of penance could erase.” And Gabler suggests it was more than that. Because Kennedy, he writes, was “the face and the voice of modern liberalism,” Chappaquiddick cost liberalism its moral authority — at a time, the end of the ’60s, when that authority was already waning. “Catching the Wind” is presented as something of a parable — “This book,” Gabler states, “is about political morality” — by “political morality,” the author seems to mean, exclusively, a concern for the “voiceless and powerless,” as Kennedy often put it. The decline of liberalism, in any event, had at least as much to do with economic stagnation as it did with moral authority or the imperfections of liberal apostles. Kennedy, for his part, felt the winds shifting. In the wake of Bobby’s death and Chappaquiddick, as the book describes, he redoubled his commitment to be “the senator of all those in need.” As Gabler writes in a powerful closing, Ted Kennedy was attacked by the white working class from which the Kennedys had risen. For some of them Kennedy was now “favoring minority rights over their rights.” As Gabler’s next volume will no doubt describe, Kennedy’s response was not to change course. He would simply sail harder. Source: Source: www.nytimes.com

JFK Jr: Some Strange Magic

Political polarization at the elite level is a major concern in many contemporary democracies, which is argued to alienate large swaths of the electorate and prevent meaningful social change from occurring, yet little is known about how individuals respond to political candidates who deviate from the party line and express policy positions incongruent with their party affiliations. This experiment examines the neural underpinnings of such evaluations using functional MRI (fMRI). During fMRI, participants completed an experimental task where they evaluated policy positions attributed to hypothetical political candidates. To study how we process political information, political psychologist Ingrid Haas of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and her colleagues created hypothetical candidates from both major parties. On the whole, the research shows, conservatives desire security, predictability and authority more than liberals do, and liberals are more comfortable with novelty, nuance and complexity. If you had put William Buckley and Gore Vidal in a magnetic resonance imaging machine and presented them with identical images, you would likely have seen differences in their brain, especially in the areas that process social and emotional information. The volume of gray matter, or neural cell bodies, making up the anterior cingulate cortex, an area that helps detect errors and resolve conflicts, tends to be larger in liberals. And the amygdala, which is important for regulating emotions and evaluating threats, is larger in conservatives. Liberals proved more attentive to incongruent information, especially for Democratic candidates. When they encountered such a position, it took them longer to make a decision about whether it was good or bad. They were likely to show activation for incongruent information in two brain regions: the insula and anterior cingulate cortex, which “are involved in helping people form and think about their attitudes,” Haas says. Source: www.scientificamerican.com

Chastising those who present a “the tear-jerker scenario about Big, Bad, Ugly America” in Sex, Art, and American Culture, Camille Paglia cites the United States “as the most open, dynamic, creative nation on green earth.” You can’t say American exceptionalism any better than that. America is right and America will fight, even if it means destroying the world. It may be simplistic to divide the world into two, when there are many stripes to us all, but the middle is fast disappearing as we rock SS Democracy. There is nothing radical about fixing the world to keep the convenience of the wall plug while discarding downstream damage. There is nothing radical about living within our means, economically and environmentally. We’ve been warned about hollow horses since Cassandra, but some just won’t hear. In North by Northwest, Roger O. Thornhill, spells out a simple American truth, “There is no such thing as a lie; there is only an expedient exaggeration.” Paglia notes that one doesn’t need to embellish Donald Trump’s screed, because “Everything he says is so ridiculous that it is hard to heighten it.” We may have graduated from “speak softly and carry a big stick,” but there must be more to truth, justice, and the American Way than “yap loudly and pack a big shtick.” We should be wary of people who make things up to suit their politics. Time to stop polluting the airwaves and the world. 

“Those who tell the stories rule society,” said Plato centuries ago. “Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture,” said Allen Ginsberg more recently. Further, “our bottomless appetite” for TV and internet content is leading to an “information glut” so that “what is truly meaningful is lost and we no longer care what we’ve lost as long as we are being amused,” added Andrew Postman, author of The Disappearance of Childhood and Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Postman reflected on Aldous Huxley and his dystopian book Brave New World. According to Postman, one of the dangers of that new world was that “people will come to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” Camille Paglia says Postman saw that “the young would therefore inherit a frantically all-consuming culture of glitz, gossip, and greed.” 

Camille Paglia also reflected on the charisma of the son of the martyred president John F. Kennedy (July 23, 1999, interviewed by Joan Walsh): I think John Kennedy Jr. was a phenomenally personable individual on the cultural landscape, and this cutting down of such a promising man who had not reached the peak of his maturity is one of the most cruel jokes. I was all the more enraged as the days went on and publicity -- thanks to that buffoonish biographer, David Heymann -- began to turn against the women. Oh, right -- blame the women! -- the passengers, not the pilot. Another person who tried to blame Carolyn was Ed Klein who was criticized heavily by John's circle and his book was considered nothing but fiction. In reality Ed Klein got all that info straight from a November 1999 article written by DailyMail writer Annette Witheridge (on November 14, 1999). My first thoughts at the time were: What a curse indeed is on the Kennedy clan! Getting close to the Kennedys is hazardous to your health.  I was chilled to the heart by the weird fact that this accident occurred on the eve of the 30th anniversary of Chappaquiddick. The Kennedy travails have often been compared to Greek tragedy, and the comparison is a just one. It's the dark theme from Greek mythology of curses visited upon generation after generation after generation. For this entire week during the horribly protracted search for the bodies, I found it enormously wrenching. My thoughts have been besieged by images from classical literature. I couldn't help thinking of Hector, the great hero and crown prince of Troy, as his body was mutilated by Achilles and dragged around the walls of his parents' citadel, followed by the ritual burning of his body. I thought about "Antigone" and the way that play begins with the impious exposure of Antigone's brother's body. And I thought also of a famous passage in Virgil's "Aeneid" about the death of Marcellus, a very promising young man who was the adoptive son and heir of the Roman emperor Augustus. Marcellus' death at age 20 produced enormous mourning among the Romans, since he embodied the future of the dynasty. That theme of the young man cut down recurs in this case, although John F. Kennedy Jr. was not 20, but 38. But it still falls under the archetype of Adonis, the beautiful young man whose blood is shed to regenerate nature. In fact, Gore Vidal very wonderfully cited this metaphor about JFK Sr. to explain the enormous popular outpouring after the assassination that made him mythological. 

I think all of us who admired JFK Jr. we did so because we realized what opportunities he had to be a total wastrel and an arrogant ass, but he was the opposite, an amiable, very laid-back guy. It appears that Jackie herself was worried and described him as a sort of space cadet who would suddenly tune out. It was his way of coping with the pressures. His going off into dreamy detachment could have been a factor in his final fate. I did see him in person on one occasion, he had a Cary Grant level of beauty, with the proportions of a Greek Kouros sculpture. The one time I saw JFK Jr. was at the party that he threw at the Art Institute in Chicago during the 1996 Democratic Convention. He knew who I was, and we briefly shook hands -- I remember thinking how rock-hard his forearm was when I patted it. It was just a moment, but I have to say that in my entire life, I have never seen a more charismatic person. He himself seemed to radiate this light that has always been identified with exceptional persons in history. The subject of charisma is one that I've discussed in my own work. It goes all the way back to the sudden influx of grace perceived by early Christians. Halos or auras are always shown emanating from holy beings in the world art. It's a theme I've applied in my work to the charisma of great movie stars, the radiant light in George Hurrell's photos of Garbo or Dietrich at the 1930s high point of the Hollywood studio system. I've seen genuinely charismatic people only a few times in my own life, and that night in Chicago was certainly one of them. At his best, JFK Jr. exuded some strange magic. It partly came from the mere fact of his celebrity, but it was also his physicality, his movie star looks, his dazzling presence. Obviously his magazine wasn't doing as well as might be hoped, but the fact that he broke his ankle this year in that sports accident was a sign that his control of the physical world was starting to slip. It was a warning sign to slow down -- to stop and reassess. Something was turning in his own life and fate, but he didn't listen to the signal. Source: counterpunch.org

An acquaintance of historian Steve Gillon remarks: Caroline Kennedy kept touch with Rosemarie Terenzio between 1999-2002, and apparently she reached out to her when her book “Fairy Tale Interrupted” came out to let Rosemarie know she was okay with it. This is Rosemarie's version of why John and Carolyn spent time apart before the crash: "They were not separated. They spent a night apart because Carolyn was at the hospital with Anthony. She spent the night there and John was at a Yankee game and left his keys at the office." I know Caroline wasn't so happy about Billy Noonan's book, since it focused more on the dark side of John and Carolyn’s marriage, and she went hard on Noonan in 2009. Gary Ginsberg’s kids are friendly with Caroline’s kids, and he has proved to be discreet. Caroline has avoided most of the circle of friends surrounding John, due to their propensity to speculation or talking about his brother’s privacy. In other cases, as Sasha Chermayeff or Robert Littell, I have the feeling the distance has always been mutual. On all accounts, Caroline Kennedy only talked with the Bessette family when she had to settle their lawsuit, although later she had contact with Carolyn’s sister Lisa Bessette, who has worked for the Art department at University of Michigan-Ann Arbor. John Perry Barlow observed once that Caroline Kennedy didn’t seem to like anybody beyond her husband, kids, and their snobby friends and she had ditched 80% of the Kennedy clan. I’ve heard that Arthur Schlesinger's tapes were going to be eventually released but Caroline moved the date forward (for whatever reason). The Kennedy family retains control of materials related to Death of a President (1967) by historian William Manchester. Jacqueline Kennedy's interview tapes with the author are sealed at the Kennedy Library until 2067.

John had a few chances to question his decision of getting married to Carolyn Bessette. It seems that Carolyn was also unsure since she did not like the press and all of it put a strain on their relationship. Carolyn had to bear some ridiculous criticism from Anne Witheridge who had the nerve to call her in print: “A bug-eyed pupa in reverse evolution who seems to reserve her smiles for her exclusive acquaintances or cool people and who may have been a dead end for him [John] as a personality.” She also received praise, but posthumously: “She was one of the most iconic, beautiful and stylish women of our time, who epitomised elegant, easy and flawless chic. Her ’90s uniform of neutral colours and crisp silhouettes inspired a number of spring/summer 2019 collections, including Burberry and Chanel,” said international fashion editor Jayne Pickering. I thought Carolyn's best look was with thicker eyebrows and dirty blond hair rather than that bleached into oblivion blond. The cheesiness of Carolyn's early photoshoots reflected her sense of humour. “Carolyn loved to laugh – hers was an unforgettable, contagious laugh,” says Colleen Curtis, a former classmate. “She was always ready with a wise-crack. She greeted friends with a big hug. You never doubted her sincerity.”

I always thought Carolyn resembled John Mellencamp's ex-wife--Elaine Irwin. It was reported she was first hired by Calvin Klein for her resemblance to Irwin. Carolyn had stayed in Boston after graduating and worked as an events organiser for a nightclub management company. Then, aged 24, she went into the Calvin Klein store at Chestnut Hill Mall to enquire about a sales assistant position and was given the job on the spot because of her resemblance to Elaine Irwin, the brand’s favourite model at the time. I don't think Carolyn was cheating during the marriage, her Bergin’s affair post-wedding to John was all made up. What I am sure is if Carolyn had got pregnant and they had a baby, he was gonna stay with her at least for 18 years. If she had been more ambitious, she would've left the fashion schtick alone and used her early education degree to help John with ReachingUp, or collaborate with him more steadily for George. That way she would've gotten better press, and it would have been a stepping stone to becoming a political wife. She didn't go from being a waitress in Boston to a valued CK employee by being lazy. But I feel once she married John, she said 'Fuck it, I'm set for life now'. Also, John encouraged his old-fashioned idea of taking care of his wife. Anyway, as RoseMarie Terenzio said: “Carolyn wasn’t John’s shadow; she was his equal”.

The kind of people who came out and said negative things about Ms. Bessette are people who tried to be friends with her but she probably ignored or avoided. Candace Bushnell (who wrote the columns that TV show Sex and the City were based on) had a monthly "fictional" column in Manhattan File magazine that followed the narcissistic, drugged-up, travails of a woman whose initials were something like CKB (I can't remember but it was obviously a play on Carolyn's name). The woman in these stories was always running from paparazzi, popping pills and complaining that her famous hubby didn't spend enough time with her. Since Bushnell was a New Yorker in the know and based almost everything she wrote on real people and events, I always believed this column was a direct poke at CBK. After her death, the column was never seen again. I know by good sources that Candace Bushnell had a fling with Michael Bergin and encountered Carolyn a couple times. Carolyn Bessette's roommate Dana Strayton from Boston University said that Carolyn never mentioned John Kennedy prior to meeting him at Calvin Klein, and she never talked about purposely going to NY.

I know John taught at several universities, including Pace University in New York, and the students spoke highly of him. He also tutored ESL students in English in Connecticut. The world really got cheated out of what he might have done in the future. The public's fixation with Lady Di and forcing a meet cute with John was so weird, John literally said he didn't like the British Royal family, and his only interaction with Princess Diana was the meeting to discuss a George cover which she declined, and that was that. In one interview with Chris Matthews, John alluded that in the case he was going to run for office, his life had to be in order. I saw Presidency for him in the future, I saw him being a great advocate for diverse causes. He didn't have a mean bone in his body but those nasty Right Wing people would have definitely gone after Carolyn and her issues during a campaign. Caroline Kennedy got dragged when she tried to run for senate, despite being backed up by his uncle Teddy. Even her husband Edwin Schlossberg gave her an ultimatum - ‘our marriage or the job’. I feel she resented Edwin for damaging her relationship with her brother. John and Caroline were not on the best terms before John died, they were barely speaking. I know John didn’t like his brother-in-law at all. I don’t think Jackie liked Edwin either. Caroline probably has a lot of regret of how she treated her brother and Carolyn. They died and they weren’t talking by then. Santina Goodman was a good friend of John (they never dated) and his death led her to a deep depression and she committed suicide in January 2019. She wanted to write a memoir, she had a manuscript, photos and everything sort of set up, but she was in a very dark place. Despite being close to Jackie and Caroline Kennedy before John's death, Caroline cut off Santina and 90% of John's friends after the crash, and they were disappointed with her.

The Kennedys were never too liberal. They were always centre leaning left. “Most of the members of my family keep working in public service,” Caroline Kennedy explained at the JFK library, “but some of them have started doing other things.” An aide, mingling in the aisles, said the late president’s daughter writes and speaks just “because she wants to get the message out.” Helen Ward has her own Kennedy connection. The Wards were said to be close friends with Caroline’s late brother, John, going back to the days when John was dating Daryl Hannah, and they all went on a trip to go helicopter skiing. About Daryl Hannah, Jackson Browne was burnt because she had asked him not to come to her family home during her father's illness and subsequent death. Jackson found out that he wasn't invited -- mind you, they had been in a 10 year relationship and Daryl did not want to marry him after he had proposed numerous times, they had communal possessions that had to be sold and arbitrated after their official split up. Knowing what I do about prior and subsequent relationships that Jackson had, I find him to be a kind and gentle soul and I know he was deeply hurt by this final indiscretion by Daryl Hannah.

Jackson wasn't invited because JFK Jr was instead at Daryl's family home. Contrary to what the tabloids have printed, Jackie Kennedy and Daryl were friendly, and as far as I know she didn't approve nor disapprove of Daryl for JFK Jr. But Daryl was very prone to cheating on Jackson, and JFK Jr. was not the first indiscretion in that relationship. Also, Jackson Browne found out about the relationship of Daryl and JFK Jr. through the tabloids and friends, not directly from Daryl. Steve Gillon reached out to Daryl to interview her for his book, but she refused. Daryl and John had their fights for sure, she was going back and forth between John Jr and Jackson Browne, which angered John because she couldn't decide. When John was at Brown University, he briefly dated a girl until she cheated on him with another girl, it turned out she was a lesbian, and John was shook for a while. He said, "Did I make her do that?" John also had an "invisible chain" on his exes if you will, that he "rattled" at times and when he did they would come back to him. The only ex that really moved on, and never had contact with John after the breakup was Sally Munro.

Carolyn Bessette was clearly a flawed person and she was problematic sometimes, and the fact John regularly put up with it is what baffles many people. It's clear that Carolyn was not a social climber. A true social climber would've attended all these elite events and galas on a whim, but Carolyn dreaded them and preferred to stay at home. A true social climber would've made important connections with John's circle, but Carolyn was cutting them off or even ruining John's relationship with them. A social climber would've gotten closer with his family members even if the feeling was not genuine, However, Carolyn was barely skimming the surface. A social climber would've loved and relished the public attention, but Carolyn hated it, and avoided it. She only was called a social climber by Ed Klein because Carolyn Bessette was born in White Plains, her father William Bessette was a cabinet-maker and she didn't belong to a wealthy family. The former VP of Public Relations at Calvin Klein, Suzanne Eagle, commented to Liz Lange about how much she missed Carolyn's company, despite of acknowledging she could be difficult to work with. "I always wished that being her boss was a better experience," said Eagle.

James DiEugenio: No film in history was ever attacked, actually vilified, as Stone's film JFK was in advance. At least I cannot think of one. Stone was saying that the likes of David Halberstam, and the rest of the media were wrong. Vietnam was not some kind of inevitable tragedy. LBJ did not continue Kennedy's policy there. Kennedy was planning on getting out when he was assassinated. And Stone not only said this, he had back up for it through Fletcher Prouty and John Newman's books. Stone was not just going up against the MSM, but the historical establishment. How could all of those academics have missed this? I mean, in the Gravel version of the Pentagon papers there is a section entitled "Phased Withdrawal". Does this mean our historical establishment did not do its homework? Or that they did not have the guts to swim against the tide? After all the war went on for decades, killed 58,000 Americans, disabled 375,000 more, and killed millions of Vietnamese people. Could everyone have been so wrong, and JFK was right? They did not want to admit that. And they sure as heck did not want to ask the follow up question: did the reversal of policy have something to do with Kennedy's assassination? The reason for this resistance is that it supplies a dramatic and visible reason for a high level plot. Which is what Stone was insinuating. Its not like this subject had not been broached previously. It had by people like Peter Scott, Arthur Schlesinger at the trial of Dan Ellsberg, and Bobby Kennedy said it himself before he died. Jim Garrison was the first critic to pursue a trial. Now you got a mass market, Oscar nominated movie dramatizing that thesis, with many additional facts to back it up. The capper is this: it was Stone's film that produced the evidence that showed LBJ was lying about this matter in order to cover his own tracks. The Vietnam angle is the reason why the film was so bitterly attacked. I now can argue persuasively that Johnson had planned on reversing Kennedy's policy and escalating the war at a very early date. He then, step by step, executed that plan. To give but one indication that many people know: the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was written two months before the incident happened. To give another, NSAM 288, issued in March of 1964, included many of the targets that were hit in the air attack LBJ ordered after the Tonkin Gulf incident in August. Let me add this: the very writing of NSAM 288 would seem unimaginable under Kennedy. And that is not me saying that. Its Roger Hilsman of the State Department because NSAM 288 was written up by the Pentagon. Kennedy told Hilsman, who was undersecretary for Asia, that he did not want the Pentagon guys even visited Vietnam unless it was cleared by him. But now LBJ had allowed them to draw up the plans for a large scale attack upon the north. In other words, something Kennedy had not allowed in three years, LBJ now paved the way for in three months. So here is my question: how the heck did all those scholars and all those journalists--and David Halberstam--miss this key point for all those years, even decades? Was it ignorance? Or just bias? Either way, they did not look good with the exposure of Stone's film. In fact, as we now know, LBJ had a secret committee working on the planning of  his escalation of the war. And  the target date was keyed around his inauguration.The committee decided the war would begin in February right after that ceremony. The first troops arrived at Da Nang in March. Source: educationforum.ipbhost.com