Reclaiming Parkland

[Charles Drago]

Can we calm down a bit?

If I were any calmer, I'd be asleep.

My tone was not fervid, my thoughts were not scrambled by passions.

I'm sure, Jim, that you're not attempting to draw attention from my message by suggesting that the messenger was somehow ... beside himself.

Good?

Thanks.

My book is not about Manson.

]

I never meant to state or imply that it was.

Based on what you've revealed about the text and subtext of your new book, however, I'm led to conclude that you will reference the "Manson" affair more than simply in passing. I can't imagine how you can probe the deep political elements observable in Bugliosi's work without an in-depth discussion of Helter Skelter and its main character.

I guess that I'm hard-pressed to understand how, as you state, you can meaningfully discuss "Helter Skelter ... only as far as to show that the popular mythology about the Tate/LaBianca murders is wrong ... [and] that Bugliosi had a prime and large role in spawning it" while harboring the paper-thin (my term) understanding of it all that you yourself describe.

My job is not to solve [the Manson] case. Sorry. I think JFK, RFK and MLK is plenty for one guy to do. Don't you think so? I sure as heck do.

Here's that pesky straw man of yours again. I never suggested that you should be expected to "solve" the Manson mystery, but only be sufficiently conversant with the official version and adept at plumbing its deep political depths.

And just for the record, neither you nor I have "solved" the cases of the murders of JFK, RFK, and MLK. The obligation to do so is no more yours than it is anyone else's.

So we're clear.

My job is only to show how what VInce did in that case is as flawed as what he did in Reclaiming History.
So excuse me if I don't join up with Gorightly and John Judge and The Shadow over Santa Susana on this right now. That was never my intent. My intent is to show how this reflects on VB. That is it. And that is quite good enough for my limited purposes.

I'll reiterate what I posted earlier in this thread:

"By your own admission, Jim, it's clear that your learning curve is appropriately steep and, at this point in time, represents a journey barely begun. With all due respect, please consider extending your deadline until you've been able to mine insight from the startle reflex.

I'm sure you'll agree that the last thing the canon of deep political research needs is another under-informed book-length examination of extraordinarily complex and challenging subjects."