04-09-2009, 08:02 PM
Alright, then, I'll go first...
On the second item, I'm not sufficiently technically adept nor up on the tight specifics of the gunfire analysis issues to even begin to comment. I posted it because sometimes there is some "clue" as to the meaning of the new information in its release date, manner, source, etc. and those who are up on the specifics can spot something of meaning, or be able to label it as disinformation, or whatever.
On the first item, however, this is of general enough nature and given the recent death of the man and all the speculation and chatter surrounding it that the question must be raised "Why did Teddy say that he was satisfied with the conclusion of the Warren Commission?".
Aside from the deeper and more obtuse elements and perspectives, I have empathy for a man who saw his two older brothers assassinated and who, consequently, must have been in a deep, long-term cycle of shock, psychological trauma, anger, grief, et al. And then to continue to go to work on a daily basis in the very center of power where those and many other questions lay more open to his inquiry and knowledge (or maybe not).
As a mere citizen, I have been continually assaulted and traumatized by the events of deep politics, so I have a smattering of feeling for what someone of very close proximity must have gone through. Recently, in discussing my own post 9/11 grief/ shock/anger reaction, someone said to me "denial is a gift from God".
Without getting into a debate about God's gifts or the validity and accuracy of that expression in general, or in my case, or others, it might be surmised that Teddy, after much immersion in his own self and familial experience, might well have felt that it was worth it, for the sake of the surviving Kennedy generations, to say simply "I accept the Warren Commission findings" as a way of vaccinating his family against further traumas, both real and psychological. Whether he really meant what he said can only now be answered by Kennedy family insiders who must grapple with the same issues, or by Teddy's intimate confessors, whomever and however high they may be in the human or spiritual world.
That said, however, the rest of us still have to grapple with the ongoing cultural and political presence of what happened in Dealey Plaza, the Ambassador Hotel, the World Trade Center and countless other locations and scenes in the world of deep politics.
Recently I was also struck -- when reading "Mind Over Matter" by K.C. Cole -- by the parallel between those who attempt to fathom the secrets of the cosmos and those who try to fathom what happened decades ago, though it be shrouded.
Says Cole, "One can't travel into a black hole without getting crushed into oblivion. But that doesn't rule out riding into those dark recesses with the help of mathematics and imagination." [By imagination, she means the tools of science, purpose, calibration, accuracy of terms, thesis, hypothesis, synthesis, etc.]
What conceivable good is it to study black holes? Progress isn't always clear, and purpose seems uncertain to some. But the answer might be the same for those who plumb the depths of the galaxies and those who attempt to understand deep political events, echoed in Faraday's response when asked the value of his explorations of electricity: "Of what use is a newborn baby?"
We have faith that the study of the black holes of deep politics might, as is postulated about the black holes themselves, show us the inverse white hole on the other side. and lead to a better understanding and new insights of the deep space of human politics.
On the second item, I'm not sufficiently technically adept nor up on the tight specifics of the gunfire analysis issues to even begin to comment. I posted it because sometimes there is some "clue" as to the meaning of the new information in its release date, manner, source, etc. and those who are up on the specifics can spot something of meaning, or be able to label it as disinformation, or whatever.
On the first item, however, this is of general enough nature and given the recent death of the man and all the speculation and chatter surrounding it that the question must be raised "Why did Teddy say that he was satisfied with the conclusion of the Warren Commission?".
Aside from the deeper and more obtuse elements and perspectives, I have empathy for a man who saw his two older brothers assassinated and who, consequently, must have been in a deep, long-term cycle of shock, psychological trauma, anger, grief, et al. And then to continue to go to work on a daily basis in the very center of power where those and many other questions lay more open to his inquiry and knowledge (or maybe not).
As a mere citizen, I have been continually assaulted and traumatized by the events of deep politics, so I have a smattering of feeling for what someone of very close proximity must have gone through. Recently, in discussing my own post 9/11 grief/ shock/anger reaction, someone said to me "denial is a gift from God".
Without getting into a debate about God's gifts or the validity and accuracy of that expression in general, or in my case, or others, it might be surmised that Teddy, after much immersion in his own self and familial experience, might well have felt that it was worth it, for the sake of the surviving Kennedy generations, to say simply "I accept the Warren Commission findings" as a way of vaccinating his family against further traumas, both real and psychological. Whether he really meant what he said can only now be answered by Kennedy family insiders who must grapple with the same issues, or by Teddy's intimate confessors, whomever and however high they may be in the human or spiritual world.
That said, however, the rest of us still have to grapple with the ongoing cultural and political presence of what happened in Dealey Plaza, the Ambassador Hotel, the World Trade Center and countless other locations and scenes in the world of deep politics.
Recently I was also struck -- when reading "Mind Over Matter" by K.C. Cole -- by the parallel between those who attempt to fathom the secrets of the cosmos and those who try to fathom what happened decades ago, though it be shrouded.
Says Cole, "One can't travel into a black hole without getting crushed into oblivion. But that doesn't rule out riding into those dark recesses with the help of mathematics and imagination." [By imagination, she means the tools of science, purpose, calibration, accuracy of terms, thesis, hypothesis, synthesis, etc.]
What conceivable good is it to study black holes? Progress isn't always clear, and purpose seems uncertain to some. But the answer might be the same for those who plumb the depths of the galaxies and those who attempt to understand deep political events, echoed in Faraday's response when asked the value of his explorations of electricity: "Of what use is a newborn baby?"
We have faith that the study of the black holes of deep politics might, as is postulated about the black holes themselves, show us the inverse white hole on the other side. and lead to a better understanding and new insights of the deep space of human politics.
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"