Am I A ' Leftist Radical'? Nope, Just A JFK- Era Liberal Who Never Changed Over 54 Years!

JFK - denounced as a "statist" as well as a "commie"  - so I figure I'm in good company!

Back in in the mid-90s I was taken aback at the accusations of "commie"  hurled at me by unhinged lone nut defenders (e.g. of the 'lone nut',  Warren Commission codswallop) on the JFK usenet groups. It was particularly evident on alt.jfk.conspiracy (moderated) run by erstwhile Marquette political science prof John McAdams. The reason for their ire? My robust defense of JFK's decision to issue National Security Action Memorandum 263 to pull all U.S. personnel out of Viet Nam by calendar year 1965.

Of course, the original retort of Warrenite pawns was to insist JFK never intended any such thing. Then, I had to inform them that what has often been cited as the NSAM, i.e.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/w6LJoSnW4UehkaH9Ip5IAA.aspx


Is in fact only the cover letter by McGeorge Bundy. It has only passing relevance to the actual content of the NSAM, but it does clearly state “the President approved sections IB(1-3) of the report". Which report? To find these, the researcher must turn to Document 142 in The Pentagon Papers: ‘Report of McNamara Taylor Mission to South Vietnam'. Then the serious researcher will read:

IB(2) A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by the Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. military personnel by that time.

IB(3): In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

When that clarification became impossible to refute, they jumped on the "commie" epithet bandwagon. This then brings us to: What happens in this country if one comes to a certain political position then retains that position while the entire political spectrum shifts around him?  This is a question I've frequently asked myself as I've beheld dozens of people around me shift their politics to suit the mood of the moment or the media's tune. It has included family, friends as well as others.

For reference, let me make it clear I am not only knowledgeable of JFK's many anti-war policies (including the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of Aug., 1963) but also embracing them. That's because I am an old line Kennedy-style liberal who has never altered his position an iota since the early 1960s.  (Even years before I could vote). I  make no apologies for that, though the party I once belonged to has now moved center -right and corporate. In the words of a recent salon.com piece: "The majority of Democrats have shifted to the right so far that the two-party system is almost unrecognizable, according to Noam Chomsky".

 The same piece quotes MIT Prof Noam Chomsky:

“There used to be a quip that the United States was a one-party state with a business party that had two factions: the Democrats and Republicans—and that used to be pretty accurate, but it’s not anymore. The U.S. is still a two-party state, but there’s only one faction, and it’s not Democrats, it’s moderate Republicans. Today’s Democrats have shifted to the right,”

This was originally related to an interview by RT America’s Anissa Naouai.

Chomsky's insights are spot on, and as I've posted before, the only reason some perceive me as a Marxist Socialist or "communist" (as opposed to FDR-JFK style liberal) today is because: 1) Their own positions have shifted radically right and 2) they're unaware how the political spectrum shift has been warped by propaganda, revisionist history. (Such as the Rightist trope that JFK was "really a cold warrior" and 'fiscal conservative' when all the evidence indicates this is balderdash, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/07/thats-right-now-blame-60s-jfk-for.html

For example, invoking moderate deficit spending of the type used during WWII, as noted by Prof. Donald Gibson "(Battling Wall Street: The JFK Presidency') :

"What Kennedy attempted to effect .....in the three years he was in office, was a moderate peacetime version of the federal policy during World War Two."

What was the result? Professor Gibson once more:

"During the years affected immediately by Kennedy's policies , 1962 to 1964-65, the U.S. economy returned to and even exceeded the rapid growth displayed during the pre-stagnation period" (of WWII).

But the philosophic conflation of liberals with commies  (as JFK himself was identified after signing the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) occurred long before JFK reached office. Commie hysteria - the "Red Panic"- probably began in the late 1940s soon after the Russians got the A-bomb.

The 1950s then became a decade of runaway paranoia which most of those who didn't live then can't even begin to imagine. One marker is shown below,  in one of the "Crusade Against Communists" trading cards produced by TOPPS, e.g.

 The aim was to inculcate ‘Communist Recognition’ in children 7 to 10 years old, and get them to hate this system even before they knew what it was about. The garish depictions, such as that shown of Mao Tse-Tung with ghoulish green face  - helped to reinforce the propaganda.   Hysteria grew as an admixture when millions of grade schoolers - like I was in 1952- had to duck under our desks in regular drills to "escape the fallout from Communist atomic bombs". Air raid sirens screamed as whole cities underwent "emergency drills" and CONELRAD broadcast its ominous messages and beeps. 

The TV at the time didn't help either, with propaganda shlock like "I Led Three Lives" fucking up viewers' brains to a far-thee-well.

Then there were the House Un-American Activities  Committee (HUAC) sessions convened by rabid, anti-commie ideologue, Sen. Joseph McCarthy - who makes Ted Cruz look like a wienie or wimp. McCarthy's insane crusade ended up tarring thousands of innocent Americans with the "commie" brush, because too many lame brains were caught up in his nonsense and never approached his hearings analytically until the very end.

By the 1960s, I'd had it with the American propaganda and began sending for 'Soviet Life' magazine from the Russian Embassy in D.C. Sure it was propaganda - I knew that - but I wanted to see what the other side had to say. After receiving about seven issues, however, I grew bored reading of all the "agrarian reforms". 

By the end of Reagan's 2nd term, commie myths and hatreds were well entrenched and Ronnie the pop-eyed fool (who once asked a Naval commander if cruise missiles could be "recalled")  could get away with calling the USSR the "Evil Empire". Never mind this "evil empire" saved the West's living ass as it turned back Hitler's troops in World War II, at the cost of losing 20 million of their own people. Think about that! How do you think America would have handled a vicious aggressor actually invading the nation and laying waste to major cities as the Hitlerites did to Russia? And losing 20 million?  (For some insight, google: "Battle of Stalingrad")


What about Trump who seems neither left nor right? One commenter's take on smirkingchimp.com encapsulates him:

"Trump is a giant sized real estate salesboy, nothing more. he is used car sales trash grown fat. Trump is a reflection of a society turned away from productive activity, belittling honest labor and skills as nerd stuff, glorifying sales trash and marketeer "sell the sizzle" non values. It is a reflection of a world that promotes "selling the brand" over the product. It is a reflection where the ONLY purpose of a business is to make money with no ethics, no expectation to produce anything, no obligation to the employees, no obligation to the community. It is a broken society. trump is not a healthy human being."

 

What  'Blood Red Sun' is writing here I pretty well agree with. Trump is more a carny barker or "sales pitch man" than actual politician - of the Left or the Right. Those party demarcations mean nothing to him so he can easily flip flop - whether on abortion rights, Social Security, military expenditure, taxes or whatever he wants.

Back to the Democrats. Their mutation toward corporate elitism began when they embraced Neoliberalism via the Democratic Leadership Council  (DLC) in the Reagan era, and 'Fix the Debt' by 2010.  The Party effectively became Republican lite – though they've always tried to make us believe they’re the 2^nd coming of true Dem liberal populists.

Bah!  If you want to behold true Democratic populists look at the Bernie Sanders' campaign. Then look how shabbily it's been treated by the Dem establishment, aka Neoliberals.

Some perspective on this is provided by Robert McChesney in his excellent book, The Problem of the Media, Monthly Review Press, 2004, p. 49:

"With the election of Ronald Reagan, the neoliberal movement had commenced. Neoliberal ideology became hegemonic not only among Republicans but also in the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Joseph Liebermann. Differences remained on timing and specifics, but on core issues both parties agreed that business was the rightful ruler over society.

It was a return to the 1920s - if not the Gilded Age of the late nineteenth century. Few industries seized the neoliberal high ground as firmly as the media and communications industries.

A new generation of economists trumpeted the value of applying market principles to all communication policy matters, as one of them put it, 'the ancien regime was often dominated by ad hoc prescriptions premised on shaky economics applied to dubious histories'.

--snip--

Behind the mighty rhetoric, the stakes were clear. These corporations knew if they were granted First Amendment protection, their existence and operations "would be placed beyond the reach of majorities"

McChesney goes on to note (p. 51) that this is pretty well what DLC'er Clinton accomplished with his 1996 Telecommunications Act.  Which as we may recall, also set the stage for Bernie Ebbers' WorldCom scandal, as well as the Adelphia travesty.

Again, McChesney (p. 51):

"The corruption in media policy making culminated in the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, arguably one of the most important pieces of U.S. legislation. The law rewrote the regulatory regime for radio, television, cable television, and satellite communication - indeed, all of electronic communication including the internet.

The operating premise of the law was that the new communications technologies - combined with increased appreciation for the genius of the market- rendered the traditional regulatory market moot.

The solution therefore was to lift regulations and ownership restrictions from commercial media and communication companies, and allow competition in the marketplace to develop, and reduce the government's role to that of protecting private property.

There was virtually no dissent whatsoever to this legislation from either party, the law sailed through both houses of congress, and was signed by a jubilant President Clinton in February, 1996. Corporate CEOs regarded it as their "Magna Carta".

It was around this time I ceased membership in the Democratic Party and became an Independent instead. This meant I had the total freedom not to be bound by a party -  or its platforms -  that no longer embodied my old line JFK-FDR principles. Was I wrong? No!

The Democrats had indeed forgotten the foremost words of JFK himself:

For the Democratic Party is not a collection of diverse interests brought together only to win elections. We are united instead by a common history and heritage--by a respect for the deeds of the past and a recognition of the needs of the future.

Personally, I predict a schism in the D-party as it  drifts ever more rightward. On one side you will have the wine and brie eating elite Dems who man the investment banks, are CEOs of corporations and make up most of the "super delegates" that ensured Bernie's loss. On the other side will be the 10 million plus who voted Sanders in the primaries and are dedicated to  defending and speaking for its traditional constituencies - as well as the millions of new immigrants entering the country.

The choice of the current  Dems is this: do you continue your DLC ways - which have now cost three consecutive congressional elections (including the Dem loss of the Senate in '14) or do you change your ways?

Do you continue to whore for corporate America in the perverse belief that "business is the rightful ruler of the society" or do you return to the defense of the interests of the ordinary Joe and Jane?

The answers to these questions will ultimately determine the quality of life for the citizens of this country.

Some Bloggers Talking Utter BS About Socialism, Bernie Sanders and JFK

JFK - still misrepresented by too many clueless bloggers on the Right


There comes a time when one must respond to bullshit wherever it emanates from and in this election year a ton of it is being spouted from sundry conservative blogs. One such that I came across  dismissed Socialism (Democratic Socialism), Bernie Sanders (pinning him as "wealthy" with $436,000 net worth - are you fucking kidding me?) and painting JFK as a diehard conservative.  The depth of horse shit and combined bull shit in just plowing through this uninformed screed was almost enough to give me a freakin' headache - since one must not imbibe too much of this crap at one time.

Let's take his rant about Bernie's net worth first, dispelling any notion that $436,000 - especially for a pol (think  BILLIONAIRE  Donald Trump, who this person supports for god's sake) is any kind of "king's ransom". NO it is not! Anyone who has ever read the financial advice press will tell you that for an older couple that sum is barely enough to cover expenses in old age, especially if one faces a catastrophic illness, or suffers a paralyzing injury (e.g. fall) requiring 24/7 care.

Indeed, AARP Bulletin articles repeatedly warn senior couples to have on hand at least $250,000 just for medical issues. Granted Bernie has some congressional benefits, but even those would only go so far, say if he ended up in a nursing home. It is as I said ludicrous to bitch and moan about his net worth (which is idiotic to compare to an ordinary citizens' given his distinct lawmaker career trajectory). But he obviously doesn't think 24 years of congressional service adds up to Trump's finagling financial deals that only enriched his sorry ass. It IS in fact MORE a "real job" than Trump building casinos then going under repeatedly and just making money off bankruptcy filings and branding tricks. HAS' the Donna' done a day's REAL work in his silver spoon- fed life, I doubt it.

Prof. David Cay Johnston on Chris Hayes' All In tonight reminded one and all that back in 1990, the deadbeat Donald Trump couldn't even pay his damned bills- even though he claimed to be a billionaire. But he got bailed out then because the state of New Jersey Casino Control Division took his side against his bankers - to whom he owed tons of money. In Prof. Johnston's words:

"It was government intervention in the market that saved him."

If you want an example of a pseudo-capitalist invoking socialism there it is. Yet his blind supporters caterwaul day in and day out that it's socialists like Bernie who are the threat. Yet as Johnston pointed out, it's "Trumponomics" - paying back a deadbeat's cents on the dollar for debt that could truly wreck this country.

As for Democratic Socialism, our friend still has it mixed up with Marxism, and communism which - I suppose-  is to be expected in the States where the education system is so inferior to just about everywhere else. But let's make it clear once more for his benefit and others, democratic socialism absolutely does NOT seize the means of production or nationalize banks as allowed under full socialism. This is a total misreading. This is why, as a democratic socialist, Bernie proposed breaking up the big banks and holding them to account, i.e. by not providing taxpayer bailouts.

At its root, democratic socialism is a take off on Rhine capitalism such as practiced in assorted European states and means using the tax commons to assist and support the most vulnerable as well as provide basic benefits via social insurance programs - INCLUDING VETERANS BENEFITS. He may not wish to accept it or believe it, but his VA and SS disability are as much offshoots of this as are my Social Security and Medicare. To dispute that is not to grasp that ANY government unearned benefit amounts to a socialist extension, And no, sorry to disabuse him but you don't "earn" those benefits just for being in the military or even fighting in a war - just or unjust.

Even Rush Limbaugh recognized that fact when he reamed out one caller 4 years ago about receiving VA and Social Security benefits. The guy made the mistake of calling up and asking EL Rushbo  how he could really be "free" in a nation "ruled by a dictator like Obama". Limbaugh wasted no time telling him the first step was to STOP accepting any and all benefits coming from Obama and Obama's gubmint, NO EXCUSES! Evidently, the message never was received by some.

Now, he cites this piece of codswallop off some right wing site concerning JFK.

"I also find it interesting that the vast majority of “Democratic Socialists” admire the late prez JFK! And, hey…he was an okay prez – even for a Dem.

Ahhh…however, As Ira Stoll put it in 2013, “Kennedy’s tax cuts, his domestic spending restraint, his military buildup, his pro-growth economic policy, his emphasis on free trade and a strong dollar, and his foreign policy driven by the idea that America had a God-given mission to defend freedom all make him by the standards of both his time and our own, a conservative.” Nor should we forget JFK’s statement in his inaugural address that “we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and success of liberty.”

Completely missing the point that Kennedy - in order to prevail - had to pose as a Cold Warrior in order to best Tricky Dick Nixon in the 1960 election. (That included inflating the notion of a "missile gap" where there was none - the U.S. at the time had more ICBMS than the Russkies by nearly 5: 1.)  The extensive documentation of JFK turning from his cold warrior pose is given in Chapters 1-3 of James Douglass' book, 'JFK and the Unspeakable', (Section header: 'A Cold Warrior Turns') which I suggest my blogger pal read if he's interested in facts and not empty horse manure.

Indeed, if JFK was this purported cold warrior, WHY:

- Did he prepare for a pullout of all personnel from Vietnam (under National Security Action Memorandum 263) by 1965?

- Did he pull all of the U.S. Jupiter missiles out of Turkey 6 months after the Russians pulled theirs out of Cuba following the Cuban Missile Crisis?  Does anyone seriously believe a REAL cold warrior would do that?

- Why - in the same  Missile crisis - did he refuse the advice of his Joint Chiefs,  including Gen. Curtis Lemay -  to bomb and invade Cuba? (Afterward, Lemay compared Kennedy to "Neville Chamberlain". Would he have done that to a genuine cold warrior? Come on!)

- Why did he sign a Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (including barring all anti-missile systems) with Khrushchev in August, 1963?

- Oh, while we're at it, why didn't he provide the promised air support for the 2506 Brigade in 1961 at the Bay of Pigs? (A failure for which many enraged Cubans held him responsible.)

- Finally, why did he embark on a secret rapprochement with Castro starting in late 1962? Would a real cold warrior do that?

None of the above cited actions - never mind Kennedy's early words - makes any sense, IF Kennedy was indeed the cold warrior claimed.

Finally, the Ira Stoll-confected tax idiocy (conservative "pro growth", supply side tax attitude) I skewered 2 months ago in a previous blog post, which any interested person can read (if they are invested in facts and not poppycock)

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/03/ridiculous-memes-about-jfks-supply-side.html

HONORING JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS (PART TWO)

We now continue to elaborate on JFK’s major accomplishments:

PEACE CORPS:

Contrary to the misbegotten trope that Peace Corps was started as a legion for do- gooders, the actual basis was as part of geopolitical strategy during the Cold War. Even before the program was inaugurated on March 1, 1961, Kennedy had pointed out that the Soviet Union "had hundreds of men and women, scientists, physicists, teachers, engineers, doctors, and nurses . . . prepared to spend their lives abroad in the service of world communism."

Kennedy understood, as few leaders do today, that most true victories aren’t won on battlefields but in the hearts and minds of populations. Support those vulnerable populations in a constructive way – by providing medicines, basic health care, ways to grow new crops to feed themselves, access to clean water and education – and you will win the most critical battles. To say JFK’s program has helped burnish the American image abroad would be an understatement – never mind the common detractors whose only contribution to human advancement to date has been…..well, nothing !

Since 1961, more than 220,000 volunteers- male and female - have served in the Peace Corps, working in such diverse fields as education, health, agricultural development, HIV/AIDS education and prevention, information technology, business development, protecting the environment and developing water resources,. Peace Corps volunteers have to be U.S. citizens and at least 18 years of age. Peace Corps service is now a 27-month commitment.

And no, contrary to the lies of certain n’er do well, ignorant imps (who likely wouldn’t qualify for Peace Corps based on failing the psychological exam) Peace Corps was never a historical haven for “draft dodgers”. As part of the government, how could it have been? To be accepted you had to go through a government screening process and if you had dodged a draft call -up you’d have been exposed in a New York minute. If of draft age, at the time – say late 1960s, early 70s when the Vietnam War was going on – you had to either have a government deferment, or a draft card showing your classification was IY or 4F. There were no exceptions!

The goals of the Peace Corps remain:

1) To help the people of interested countries and areas in meeting their needs for trained workers

2) To help promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served

3) To help promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of Americans.

During my four year stint in the Peace Corps in Barbados, I helped set up the Science departments and fully outfitted biology, chemistry and general science laboratories at two different secondary schools, acted as the Head of Science Dept. in both, assisted in teacher education and curriculum development, helped found the Barbados Philosophical Society, and launched the first ever scientific journal for The Barbados Astronomical Society – as well as helping to organize public lectures, seminars, technical workshops.

The ALLIANCE for PROGRESS:

In March, 1961, Kennedy launched this critical economic assistance program – realizing the strategic importance of Latin America. In his opening speech in recognition of its goals, Kennedy said:

“We propose to complete the revolution of the Americas, to build a hemisphere where all men can hope for a suitable standard of living and all can live out their lives in dignity and in freedom. To achieve this goal political freedom must accompany material progress...Let us once again transform the American Continent into a vast crucible of revolutionary ideas and efforts, a tribute to the power of the creative energies of free men and women, an example to all the world that liberty and progress walk hand in hand. Let us once again awaken our American revolution until it guides the struggles of people everywhere-not with an imperialism of force or fear but the rule of courage and freedom and hope for the future of man

Because of the program, economic assistance to Latin America nearly tripled between fiscal year 1960 and fiscal year 1961. Between 1962 and 1967 the US supplied $1.4 billion per year to Latin America. If new investment is included, the amount of aid rose to $3.3 billion per year during this time span while the total amount of aid was roughly $22.3 billion. Sadly, once LBJ got in, the amount of aid did not equal the net transfer of resources. LBJ was likely worried about the bad press Kennedy had received – as in the reactionary Wall Street Journal – which repeatedly accused him of being a “statist” and using “dirigisme”. (E.g. 8/15/63: 'When Friends Become Foes')

SPACE - THE MOON PROGRAM:

After the ignominy of the Russian satellite Sputnik, launched on Oct. 4, 1957, the U.S. received a wake up call in respect to its science and technology deficiencies. JFK knew that in order to technologically compete, a single program and focus was needed to capture the nation's imagination and to propel it toward a future where it wouldn't be left behind. Thus the manned space program was launched, and Kennedy declared in 1961 that "before this decade is out we will land a man on the Moon". With this single -minded focus the national resources were summoned through NASA, and he was as good as his word, with the Apollo astronauts setting down on July 20, 1969. Look at most of those who became interested in math or science, especially physics - at the time - and they will tell you it was Kennedy's challenge of going to the Moon, and manned space exploration in general. For me, I recall Alan Shepherd's Mercury flight on May 5, 1961 as if it was yesterday.

Many of the devices we take for granted today, especially in computers and electronic miniaturization, are direct spinoffs from the manned space program. Specific examples include: artificial limbs, scratch resistant lenses, ventricular assist devices, and light emitting diodes for medical therapies. In addition, you can thank the space program for having provided the satellites essential to keep your GPS locators functioning in your cars and satellite dishes operating for your satellite TV. You can also thank the space program for all the weather satellites that make it possible to know in advance the approach of hurricanes.

THE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY:

Few Americans today appreciate what we had to endure in the 1950s - early 60s, in terms of radioactive fallout (with Strontium 90 and other nuclides contaminating food, air, water etc.) from massive Russian and U.S. nuclear tests in the atmosphere. Often, say each month, 100 megaton or larger test warheads would be detonated – especially in the Soviet Union. The radiation from the blasts traveled across Europe as well as the Pacific. The U.S. had its share of tests too, and before Kennedy’s initiative (signed also by Nikita Khrushchev) few of us knew whether or if it would ever end.

But with the signing and ratification of the Nuclear Test Ban treaty in August, 1963, it did. As author James Douglass aptly has noted (JFK and the Unspeakable):

“The test ban treaty was JFK’s critically important way to initiate, with Khrushchev, the end of the Cold War and their joint leadership in the United Nations for the redemptive process of general and complete disarmament.”

What changed Kennedy? Most observers believe it was the close call with the Cuban Missile crisis. Kennedy then became firmly convinced there needed to be controls in place, and also a path to general nuclear disarmament. In his American University speech on June 10, 1963, for example, JFK noted:

“Our primary long-range interest is general and complete disarmament- designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms”.

Indeed, in his National Security Action Memorandum 239 he explicitly said he was prepared to pursue such a program, noting:

” The events of the last two years have increased my concern for the consequences of an unchecked continuation of the arms race between ourselves and the Soviet bloc.”

CHALLENGING THE FEDERAL RESERVE CONTROL OF THE MONEY SUPPLY

Kennedy, while not a strict constructionist as regards the Constitution, did believe that the creation of money was legally only allotted to the U.S. Treasury and not an outside banking enterprise. (Which the Federal Reserve was, and is – see e.g. James Livingstone Origins of the Federal Reserve System - Money, Class and Corporate Capitalism 1890- 1913, Cornell University Press, 1986, p.233.)

Realizing that if he didn’t make a move to challenge the Federal Reserve no one else would, he signed Executive Order 11,110 on June 4, 1963 - to challenge Fed's control of the money supply. This EO authorized the creation of some $4.2 billion in U.S. Notes ($30b in today's dollars) to replace Federal Reserve Notes. These U.S. Notes were issued by Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon, and bore his signature. After the assassination nearly all the notes were recalled. I was fortunate in being able to save two: a $2 note with Jefferson on the front, and a $5 with Lincoln. Both display the serial numbers in red ink, not green like Federal Reserve notes. Readers who are interested in seeing the fiver can go to my blog post of July 14, last year, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/07/yes-those-us-notes-were-real.html


JFK's U.S. note issuance was clearly an effort to break the Fed stranglehold, and especially its policy whereby new money is brokered into the M1 supply system via interest, passed on to lending, issuing banks, thereby creating a stream of new debt each time.

Had he lived, massive additional infusions of U.S. Notes likely would have occurred, ultimately leading the way to redundancy of the Federal Reserve. But perhaps that’s why he couldn’t be allowed to live.

RAPPROCHEMENT WITH FIDEL CASTRO:

JFK realized also in the wake of the Cuban Missile crisis, that Castro’s Cuba could not be an enemy of the U.S. for life. There was no upside to it, for either nation. National Archives specialist and archivist Peter Kornbluh has already extensively documented the goings on in the Kennedy white house to do with Cuba in the months leading up to his assassination. Much of this was documented in his article, 'Kennedy and Castro: What Might Have Been', in The Baltimore Sun, Aug. 22, 1999, p. 1C. As he notes:

"Unknown to all but Robert Kennedy and a handful of advisors, John Kennedy began pursuing an alternative tact on Cuba in 1963: a secret dialogue toward a rapprochement with Castro. "

(snip) "The first private channel to Castro was James Donovan, a Washington lawyer negotiating the release of the Bay of Pigs prisoners. During the late fall of 1962, Donovan became the first American emissary to gain Castro's ear and his trust. Donovan arranged a trade of $62 million in food and medicines for the imprisoned brigade members. During the spring of 1963 he continued his trips to Havana to secure the release of two dozen American citizens including three CIA operatives, held in Cuban jails. Debriefed by U.S. intelligence officials after each trip, Donovan described his meetings with Castro as 'most cordial and intimate'."

Developments proceeded rapidly, according to the Kornbluh documents, until by November 19, 1963, the stage was set for a preliminary “secret meeting at the United Nations to discuss an agenda for talks with Castro”. Alas, it was not to be, and 3 days later Kennedy was dead. Most deep politics researchers suspect the CIA caught wind of the plan – despite the extraordinary efforts to keep it secret- and this along with Kennedy’s plan to pull out of Vietnam in 1965 sealed his fate. (Also quite plausible, is that the anti-Castro Bay of Pigs Cubans run by George Joannides of the CIA were privy to the Castro rapprochement, and they volunteered to be mechanics in the assassination – to “pay Kennedy back for his treachery".)

Make no mistake the legacy of John F. Kennedy lives on especially in the hearts and minds of those of us who were directly involved in one or more of his programs. We who carry on that legacy seek to make it known, as well as beating back the endless efforts of racist knaves, know-nothings and knuckle draggers to slander his name and besmirch his legacy.

"Silent Spring" - As Relevant Now as 50 years Ago

Rachel Carson's ecology classic 'Silent Spring' celebrates its 50th birthday this year.To say it was probably one of the most influential books of the 20th century is plausibly an understatement. Especially given that the Toxic pushers and industrialists-corporatists on the Right are still attacking it, i.e at a website called "RachelWasWrong.org."  But we know, at least any of us who've  read the anti-PR masterpiece 'Toxic Sludge Is Good For You' , that Rachel's attackers lack any backing that qualifies them as credible.

In fact, we know they merely have reprised the same useless, exposed template over and over again - whether to defend their hundreds of poisons seeping into our bodies and causing cancers, see, e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/10/america-toxic-1.html

And: http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/10/toxic-industrialists-play-cancer.html

Or sneaking them into our industrial food supply (as in the case of "pink slime") without us knowing.

At the time, the Toxic Industrial Complex used every nasty trick to try to destroy Carson's character.  They distributed millions of pamphlets, published articles, and vilified her in media interviews. They also described has as "fanatical" and "hysterical" - despite the fact all sane international scientists agreed with Carson. Also, A Science Advisory Committee assembled by JFK issued its own supportive report in May, 1963. Despite the shrill attacks of the critics, Carson stuck to the facts. She didn't even directly blame the toxic industrialists when 2 years later she was dying of breast cancer - yet it's likely one or more of their disgusting poisons- whether chlordane, heptachlor, or aldrin (not to mention DDT) was the prime culprit for the disease's genesis - as it is for most of our cancers today.

Meanwhile, the attack template remains the same, whether the issue is GMO-foods, asbestos, pesticides or coal-based, mercury generated air pollution: question the science and the credibility of the critics (e.g. Arpad Pusztai in the case of GMO foods, John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton in the case of toxic fertilizer sludge, and Rachel Carson in the case of DDT) and warn of unbearable costs. The latter strategy is now playing out in CA as voters there finally have the chance to force GMO foods to be labeled - as all other foods are- but are warned that if this is done it will impose an additional monetary cost of $300-400 / yr. on their grocery bill.

BOLLOCKS!

Most of the corporate Right, including the Conservative Enterprise Institute, insists Rachel Carson did "irreparable damage" by using "extreme rhetoric which generated a culture of fear - resulting in policies that have deprived many people access to life-saving chemicals."

In fact, total codswallop! Including the claim (by Brit Tory Dick Taverne)  that "the anti-DDT campaign she inspired was responsible for almost as many deaths as some of the worst dictators in the last century." Not quite, Dickster. In fact the much greater slayers have been from the West's negiligence (and RC Church's prohibition of condom use) in places like equatorial Africa leading to a monstrous AIDS outbreaks as well as the pollution of water sources. Even a tiny bit of Western capital injected in to find decent water sources might have spared millions water-borne diseases, while making AIDS - anti-HIV vaccines more widely available spared tens of millions who died in agony from AIDS.

Another aspect is the way the corporo-Rightists paint Carson as totally against ALL pesticides, when she simply sought a balance to the then extravagant chemical overuse -  at a time when ecology was barely considered a science. More to the point, that world of 50 years ago was one in which massive nuclear tests of 70-100 megatons each  (conducted by the USSR and the US) were already poisoning our atmosphere as we beheld Strontium-90 ending up in cow's milk, breast milk and other organics. (Thanks to JFK this insanity finally halted in August, 1963 with the signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty- but Rachel did reference the effects of "radiation" in her book).

As for DDT, most experts today agree the chemical pesticide would have been far less effective against malaria -carrying mosquitoes in the scattered and remote villages of sub-Saharan Africa than it was in more densely populated North America.  Indeed, we're well rid of it given that even 40 years after the government-imposed DDT ban, most Americans still carry traces of the chemical in their bodies. Imagine if that ban hadn't gone into effect. We'd be walking-talking DDT factories, or at least repositories!

Rachel Carson's lesson which we need to remind ourselves of today is that cost-benefit assessment of chemicals must always remain in the forefront when considering use. Thus, the benefits of chemicals (e.g. to slow down or halt the incursion of pests, weeds) must always be weighed against their risks and especially the human costs. As Carson wrote in 'Silent Spring' - words with which I leave readers:

"The most alarming of all man's assaults upon the environment is the contamination of air, earth, rivers, and sea with dangerous and even lethal materials. This pollution is for the most irrecoverable: the chain of evil it initiates not only in the world that must support life but also in living tissues is for the most part irreversible. In this now universal contamination of the environment, chemicals are the sinister and little recognized partners of radiation in changing the very nature of the world - the very nature of its life."


So true!