27-11-2008, 09:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 27-11-2008, 09:58 PM by Charles Drago.)
Dear Joan,
Thanks so much for taking time on this holiday to respond.
You correctly isolate the essential problem with my RFK hypothesis and, by extension, all historical speculations -- especially those relating to deep political phenomena.
Your research in defense of your argument is, for me in this exchange, impossible to match in any empirical sense. Rather, I struggle to reconcile my appreciations of the character and political agendas of RFK, including his post-Garrison period expressions of intent to re-open the investigation of his brother's assassination, with the clearly documented instances of his proxy assaults on Garrison's inquiry.
I am both moved and reinforced in my speculations by the work of James Douglass as he expands upon (JFK and the Unspeakable) unpublished conclusions drawn by George Michael Evica and me relating to that ultimately non-quantifiable aspect of the human experience known as spiritual growth. And again I would argue that two-track approaches to the solving of deep political problems are evident in the Kennedy brothers' shared m.o.
I'm writing this as I juggle all sorts of family responsibilities -- mostly relating to kitchen issues. So please forgive me if I'm less than erudite or clear in the expression of my thinking.
I'll reserve the right to continue this line of reasoning on the morrow, but I do want to respond to you today as a gesture of my continuing respect for your points of view.
If RFK were engaged in the two-track game I postulate, Jim Garrison would have been the indispensable -- and fully informed -- player in the cover story.
And knowing the strength and nobility of his character, he would have played his role to the grave.
In closing, carpe diem indeed. I agree that RFK owed an immeasurable debt of gratitude to Jim Garrison.
If I'm right, he expressed that gratitude more than once.
Many thanks, and kind regards,
Charlie
Thanks so much for taking time on this holiday to respond.
You correctly isolate the essential problem with my RFK hypothesis and, by extension, all historical speculations -- especially those relating to deep political phenomena.
Your research in defense of your argument is, for me in this exchange, impossible to match in any empirical sense. Rather, I struggle to reconcile my appreciations of the character and political agendas of RFK, including his post-Garrison period expressions of intent to re-open the investigation of his brother's assassination, with the clearly documented instances of his proxy assaults on Garrison's inquiry.
I am both moved and reinforced in my speculations by the work of James Douglass as he expands upon (JFK and the Unspeakable) unpublished conclusions drawn by George Michael Evica and me relating to that ultimately non-quantifiable aspect of the human experience known as spiritual growth. And again I would argue that two-track approaches to the solving of deep political problems are evident in the Kennedy brothers' shared m.o.
I'm writing this as I juggle all sorts of family responsibilities -- mostly relating to kitchen issues. So please forgive me if I'm less than erudite or clear in the expression of my thinking.
I'll reserve the right to continue this line of reasoning on the morrow, but I do want to respond to you today as a gesture of my continuing respect for your points of view.
If RFK were engaged in the two-track game I postulate, Jim Garrison would have been the indispensable -- and fully informed -- player in the cover story.
And knowing the strength and nobility of his character, he would have played his role to the grave.
In closing, carpe diem indeed. I agree that RFK owed an immeasurable debt of gratitude to Jim Garrison.
If I'm right, he expressed that gratitude more than once.
Many thanks, and kind regards,
Charlie