Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: McCloskey on November 07, 2005, 12:20:07 PM
-
It appeared to me that Whitten didn't give JN much credit for any of the design at Sebonac. Did you guys get the same impression? That is not exactly how I heard it happened, but I would like to learn what others might know.
-
Mc
I just read the article and I wouldn't necessarily agree that the article slighted JN. There were a few minor points I wouldn't agree with, but overall it seemed pretty fair.
The most glaring omission was failing to acknowledge Chris Rule, a JN design associate, who spent more time on the site than anyone else from either firm. I thought that was a major oversight.
-
Would this be the December issue?
C
-
I thought it was fair and balanced to both sides. Most of the article focused on how Doak, Nicklaus, staffs, and owner all worked together. I guess it's similar to People Magazine in that readers are more interested in the personalties and how they interacted. I would have rather seen/read more about the actual golf course. The pictures were all aerials and there were only three or four of them. Not nearly enough and none on the ground.
There was reference and contrast to the neighboring courses but that seemed to mostly focus on how much the courses cost to join.
I want to learn more about the golf course than GD offered and I suspect the best avenue for that will probably be the eventual posting of pics on this website.
-
Jim L - I have heard reports that the JN and RGD teams got along remarkably well. If Rule was a principal on-site rep of the JN team I agree - he should have been more recognized.
JC
-
Jonathan
I can only speak for our team, but the answer to that question would be yes. And Chris Rule was the on site design associate for ND at Sebonack and he did a terrific job.
It was a real pleasure to work with Tom, Jim and all the shapers.
-
Ever since Doak requested everyone NOT to speculate who did what work at Sebonack, I was impressed how most respected that request.
What does it say about Whitten, when he brings it up first thing?
Who cares who did what, is the finished product all it could be?
-
Adam Clayman,
I disagree.
I think it's important to know who did what.
In surgery, marriage, business and golf course architecture. ;D
Our system is geared to reward excellence in performance, and recognition is but one of those rewards.
-
Jim - look forward to the end product. Will you play on the opening day? If so TD hasn't a chance and in fact JN will be hard pressed to best you!! I know, I've played with you!
JC
-
Jonathan
No, I don't think I will be playing on opening day, but I will be there to enjoy the day for sure. You are too kind in your reference to my game. It is getting old and I feel it more everyday. My daddy told me golf is like shaving...if you don't do it everyday, you look like a bum! That is what I feel like on the course these days.
-
I haven't seen the Golf Digest article by Ron Whitten. However, I agree with Pat---there always will be people who'll want to know who did what between the Nicklaus and Doak organization, not the least reason being it certainly is an unusual collaboration or partnership or whatever they're calling it.
I'll tell you one certain fact though since it doesn't seem to be something that anyone involved wants to keep secret and that is the routing of Sebonack is totally Doak. Not just that but basically it came right off a topo basically before Doak did much in the way of studying the land. Mike Pascucci stood right there and mentioned that fact a couple of times to a few of us standing there speaking with him so obviously that's not something that's supposed to be a secret about Sebonack. Apparently a lot of routings came in previous to Doak's which Pascucci mentioned was very different from the reat and it got Mike Pascucci's attention bigtime.
-
Much as it pains me to disagree with the site's most senior Gods (obligatory smiley), I do disagree.
Mr. Nicklaus (et al.) and Mr. Doak (et al.) agreed to build this course in collaboration. They are, on this occasion, a team, presumably capable of saying both yes and no to each other -- and their collective work (not their individual contributions to that collective) is what should be seen, played, and judged.
The routing is theirs -- no matter who devised it.
The holes are theirs -- no matter who designed which of them.
The hazards are theirs -- no matter who conceived them.
The course is theirs -- no matter who contributed what.
Call me an unprofessional journalist (a quisling to my trade!), but I hope Mr. Doak and Mr. Nicklaus and all of their confederates will keep their mouths as closed as humanly possible regarding who did what.
Let you-all speculate!
-
It does matter who contributed what, especially if either side went "against type" from what they might ordinarily do. It also matters what each team learned from the other, especially if the joint effort turns out better than what either group could have done on its own. And if so, will either or both architects and their teams be better for it going forward and will any of the influence of the other show up in future work?
-
Very interesting article.
It will be intriguing to see how history treats the course and who ends up receiving the 'attention', if any is given to this course over time.
-
Dan Kelly@:
Thank God Mike Pascucci isn't a journalist! ;)
Between Doak and Nicklaus at Sebonack and who did what, after a time it will all come down to just one thing----who was responsible for #8? Someday, someone will get to the bottom of that, and then the history of the course can rest! ;)
-
Jim: I agree that omitting Chris Rule's input was a mistake, but I think Ron was trying to focus on the principals equally ... he mentioned you and Jim Urbina a little bit, and then no one else from either side, though we both know that a lot of others made contributions.
I haven't asked Urbina to count up his days but I can't believe he spent less than Chris did.
As for who is responsible for what, I still believe that it's not productive to separate that out. Judge the course by what's out there, not who did it ... and judge each of us as architects, if you must, by our other work and not by trying to pick apart Sebonack.
Or, you can read the question-and-answer piece that Jack and I are putting together for Neil Crafter's next annual SAGCA Journal. [How's that for a plug, Neil?]
-
TD
I think you know that I am full agreement with all that you said. BTW, any chance I am going to get that reply you postponed while on your Dunhill trip? LOL
-
Tom
>As for who is responsible for what, I still believe that it's not productive to separate that out.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with you here.
Most everyone counts Harbour Town as a Pete Dye course. This despite Jack Nicklaus' 'involvement.'
It will be interesting to see how Sebanack is treated by history as far as its architect is concerned ....
-
Paul:
Both Jack and I will get a share of credit for Sebonack. If it changes over time, it's because of people's perception of us and because of what else we have done in our careers, NOT because of our contribution to Sebonack, which no one else understands except us and a handful of people who were involved [all of whom are highly biased].
It will only really be important if Sebonack becomes the most important and respected course that either of us has done ... and if that happens, then it will be because we both contributed. If not, then we will be judged by our other best work.
-
re Harbour Town, it's important to note that it was JACK who got asked to do the course, he then asked for Pete's help
-
Doak and Nicklaus -- the Tillinghast and Burbeck of the 21st century!
Or is that the Burbeck and Tillinghast?
-
It seems that EVERYTHING in today's world devolves into "us versus them."
Mike
-
Mr. Nicklaus (et al.) and Mr. Doak (et al.) agreed to build this course in collaboration. They are, on this occasion, a team, presumably capable of saying both yes and no to each other -- and their collective work (not their individual contributions to that collective) is what should be seen, played, and judged.
What if your underlying premise is incorrect ?[/color]
The routing is theirs -- no matter who devised it.
The holes are theirs -- no matter who designed which of them.
The hazards are theirs -- no matter who conceived them.
The course is theirs -- no matter who contributed what.
That's more of a political, rather than an architectural statement.[/color]
Call me an unprofessional journalist (a quisling to my trade!), but I hope Mr. Doak and Mr. Nicklaus and all of their confederates will keep their mouths as closed as humanly possible regarding who did what.
It's understandable for parties in a joint venture to present a unified front. I happen to agree with the concept.
But, It's also interesting to know where good ideas come from.
They don't reside solely in the brain of the big name architect.
Bill Coore told an interesting story with respect to the creation of the centerline bunker on # 8 at Hidden Creek.
He clearly indicated that it wasn't his idea, but rather, a concept some of his staff came up with.
He didn't feel any less accomplished because one or more of his staff had a great idea. Collaboration has produced some of the great golf courses of the world.
In an informative, rather than a critical context, it would be interesting to know how various features came into being.
A journalist who wants to stamp "classified" and/or "top secret" on an issue or project, has lost his objectivity in favor of cuddling up to the parties involved.[/color]
Let you-all speculate!
For an individual who declares that he wants to learn more about architecture, to have more light shone on the subjects, why would you promote being kept in the dark ?[/color]
-
Our system is geared to reward excellence in performance, and recognition is but one of those rewards.
But why, when at least one of the two collaborators does not want to, do you feel it important to segregate their individual contributions?
Has anyone asked Tom Doak about a specific feature on the course, and how it came to be? He seems pretty open and therefore just might shed light on the evolution of Sebonac in a more helpful, educational way than simply claiming responsibility for X% of the design as some seem to want.
-
If we assume that it was a full collaboration (and I know of no reason not to), then who did what is a completely unanswerable question, isn't it? Shouldn't the work be viewed as a collaboration and evaluated accordingly?
"Influences" could be talked about, and specific features on particular holes could be "attributed" but unless they flipped a coin in advance for even holes vs. odd holes, there would be no way to assign credit. The idea was always to have a blend anyway, wasn't it?
-
Forget about shining light on the subject. This just feeds into today's unrelenting demands for immediate information about everybody else's life and work.
In this case, I'm glad to see the parties involved putting the team ahead of the individual. There's nothing more infantile than watching professionals bitch and moan about not getting credit for "X" or blaming someone else for "Y."
I see this course as a Doak/Nicklaus layout—perhaps the only one that will ever be built. It should be praised or criticized for what is in the ground, not picked apart, feature by feature, according to who came up with what.
-
Sorry. I don't know how to do that color-thing quite right. Hope you can follow this:
Mr. Nicklaus (et al.) and Mr. Doak (et al.) agreed to build this course in collaboration. They are, on this occasion, a team, presumably capable of saying both yes and no to each other -- and their collective work (not their individual contributions to that collective) is what should be seen, played, and judged.
What if your underlying premise is incorrect ?[/color]
If it is, it is. Is it?
The routing is theirs -- no matter who devised it.
The holes are theirs -- no matter who designed which of them.
The hazards are theirs -- no matter who conceived them.
The course is theirs -- no matter who contributed what.
That's more of a political, rather than an architectural statement.[/color]
That's your opinion, and I certainly wouldn't disagree with it.
Call me an unprofessional journalist (a quisling to my trade!), but I hope Mr. Doak and Mr. Nicklaus and all of their confederates will keep their mouths as closed as humanly possible regarding who did what.
It's understandable for parties in a joint venture to present a unified front. I happen to agree with the concept.
But, It's also interesting to know where good ideas come from.
They don't reside solely in the brain of the big name architect.
Bill Coore told an interesting story with respect to the creation of the centerline bunker on # 8 at Hidden Creek.
He clearly indicated that it wasn't his idea, but rather, a concept some of his staff came up with.
He didn't feel any less accomplished because one or more of his staff had a great idea. Collaboration has produced some of the great golf courses of the world.
In an informative, rather than a critical context, it would be interesting to know how various features came into being.
I agree with everything you said there. Everything.
A journalist who wants to stamp "classified" and/or "top secret" on an issue or project, has lost his objectivity in favor of cuddling up to the parties involved.[/b][/color]
No. Wrong. Totally unjustified leap to a completely wrong conclusion. (Journalists do that sometimes, too.)
The truth is:
I have no interest in "cuddling up" to any architect, living or dead.
I slyly hope Doak and Nicklaus present a unified front and decline to say who did what (other than giving credit where it's due to their associates) because it amuses me to imagine you guys going a little nuts trying to figure out who did what.
It amuses me to imagine some Tom MacWood-type character, a century from now, pulling his hair out trying to figure out who did what. It amuses me to imagine some Ron Whitten-type character claiming, a century from now, that Sebonack was REALLY all Doak, or REALLY all Nicklaus -- or REALLY all some anonymous shaper (possibly named Burbeck).
I was being purely mischievous here.
I don't care one way or another if they talk or if they don't. I'm sure it'll be interesting if they do.
That's the truth.
Let you-all speculate!
For an individual who declares that he wants to learn more about architecture, to have more light shone on the subjects, why would you promote being kept in the dark ?[/color]
I hope you understand that I've just answered that.
Let the lights shine bright! Or not.
It's none of my business.
-
JES II & Dan Callahan,
Do you feel it's equally unimportant as to which work at GCGC is Emmett's and which is Travis's ?
Colt & Crump's at PV ?
McKenzie's and Maxwell's at ANGC ?
Why is authorship is being looked at in a negative context ?
Why is there a fear of identification ?
Someone mentioned the insertion of a pond on a hole at Sebonack and I'd be curious as to its origins ?
Wouldn't you ?
-
Pat,
If you're referring to any work done at Garden City, Pine Valley or Augusta in which both of the architects you referrence for each site were on site at the time the work was done and said themselves it was a collaboration then I would leave it at that.
Again, I bet if you asked Tom Doak about a specific feature at Sebonack and its evolution he would be forthcoming.
Is it "who did what", or "why was it done" that you are really seeking?
-
Pat Mucci -
"Why does Nietzsche challenge the pursuit of the origin (Ursprung), at least on those occasions when he is truly a genealogist? First, because it is an attempt to capture the exact essence of things, their purest possibilities, and their carefully protected identities . . . if the genealoglist refuses to extend his faith in metaphysics, if he listens to history, he finds that there is something altogether different behind things - not a timeless and essential secret, but the secret that they have no essence or that their essence was fabricated in a piecemeal fashion from alien forms."
Michel Foucault - "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History"
-
I had no idea the former Packer linebacker was so erudite.
Mike
-
Is it Sebonac, ...ak or ....ack?
-
I had no idea the former Packer linebacker was so erudite.
Mike
Don't miss his "Thus Spoke Lombardi" -- co-written with Zeke Bratkowski. It's a Wisconsin classic.
No one has ever figured out who wrote which chapters.
-
Is it "who did what", or "why was it done" that you are really seeking?
BOTH
Aren't you intriqued by the creative process ?
[/color]
-
That's an interesting question Pat, please forgive the fact that you had to ask it twice.
I don't think it matters to me at all who did what at a course not yet open or one that's been open for 85 years. Having said that I can appreciate your desire to learn those details. I can imagine the learning process you are seeking...what did Doak do here that might have resulted from some influence from Nicklaus?...How will Doak's methods and practices effect the next Nicklaus course? I may well be at a different stage of understanding with respect to GCA, as you may recognize, I look at golf courses on the ground and try to analyze what is there.
I am not looking at authorship negatively, nor am I afraid of identification, I do however respect the wishes of the authors. I would be more curious about the reasons for that pond than about who thought of it. No worries.
-
I had no idea the former Packer linebacker was so erudite.
Mike
Don't miss his "Thus Spoke Lombardi" -- co-written with Zeke Bratkowski. It's a Wisconsin classic.
No one has ever figured out who wrote which chapters.
Yeah, and it was Bratkowski who also coined that phrase about sausages, politics and golf courses you quoted on another thread......
-
As to who did what at Sebonack, I for one am very interested to know the details of anything to do with the golf course, who exactly did what and why, who's idea any detail was etc, etc.
Some say Tom Doak can be quite closed mouthed sometimes but on a walk around the course with him recently he told a group of us who precisely did what and why on all the 9,871,451 architectural and other details of the golf course.
I'd love to tell you bunch of howling snoop-dogs anything you want to know about any architectural detail of the golf course, who did what, who screwed up, who bailed him out, who the geniuses and dunces on the project were but unfortunately as we got in our cars to leave Tom Doak said;
"All those 9,871,451 architectural and other details I just told you all about are completely off the record and if any of you breath a word about any of them to anyone I know where you fellas live."
-
Tom:
Thanks for respecting my ground rules. The people who are most insistent about knowing all the juicy details are the ones who will never hear any of them from me.
-
Tom Doak -
I know that you have studied your philosophy,so the next time someone asks you who designed this or that just say "the essence of Sebonack was fabricated in a piecemeal fashion from alien forms".
-
Is it Sebonac, ...ak or ....ack?
Sebonack is the correct spelling.
-
I'd like to add a little input here.
Having been involved in this project from the very start, I think I am in a relatively good position to comment on the nature of the collaboration between Tom and Jack.
Frankly, I had no idea how it would work out but I was optimistic it would work out properly. My opinion is that it worked out better than I could have ever hoped for.
There was tremendous mutual respect between Jack and Tom. The process of discussing the design in the field was engrossing. Every site visit would involve walking all eighteen holes and having extensive and detailed discussions on everything. Collaboration at its best.
Jim Lipe makes a very good point. Chris Rule wasn't mentioned in this article and he clearly should have been. While Jim Urbina was the workhorse from the RGD side, Chris was from the Nicklaus side. Both of these talented men were on site constantly and they really became a great team; yet another facet of this collaboration. Whatever work needed to be done, Chris or Jim could cover it. They really trusted and relied on one another.
These site visits were really something to witness. Jack, Tom, Michael Pascucci, Jim Urbina, Jim Lipe, Chris Rule, Garret Bodington, myself, all of the shapers and the engineers all spending hours together discussing everything from the first tee to the bye hole green. Ideas were coming from everywhere but Tom and Jack were clearly the bosses out there acting as a true partnership.
So, the truth is that this project ran far, far smoother than anyone could have hoped. It was a testament to the professionalism of Jack and Tom. I'd love it if you would stop persuing this credit issue. There's nothing to reveal. Please just appreciate Sebonack for what it is. Love it or hate it. But respect the fact that two of the greatest architects of our time gave their all to create something special.
-
Mark Hissey,
So, would you say that two heads are better than one ?
The question is:
Is a better product produced vis a vis a collaboration ?
Or, is the product diminished by compromise ?
And, are the questions both site and architect specific ?
Over five years ago I floated the concept of peer review, in a positive context, knowing full well that unlike the medical profession, that it would never occur.
But, it remains a fascinating concept, especially since it seems that many of the "Golden Age" courses and architects benefited from collaboration.
-
Patrick:
As I've already said above, the answers to your questions will be found in people's opinions of the finished product at Sebonack, and whether they think it's better than my solo work and/or Jack's. Of course, we didn't have the same site for our other work, but there is pretty much no one in this forum who can judge our work based on that.
It doesn't matter who contributed what; it matters if the end product is better because we worked together. If it isn't, then Mr. Pascucci will have wasted a bit of his money.
-
Mark Hissey,
So, would you say that two heads are better than one ?
The question is:
Is a better product produced vis a vis a collaboration ?
Or, is the product diminished by compromise ?
And, are the questions both site and architect specific ?
Over five years ago I floated the concept of peer review, in a positive context, knowing full well that unlike the medical profession, that it would never occur.
But, it remains a fascinating concept, especially since it seems that many of the "Golden Age" courses and architects benefited from collaboration.
Patrick.
I can't answer in absolutes obviously, but my personal opinion in response to your questions are as follows:
1. Yes, I would say two heads are generally better than one, but obviously that depends on the two heads. In this case, the two heads were unquestionably better than one.
2. I think a better product is produced from a collaboration. However, for this to happen, the collaborators need to be enthusiastic about working together and focused on making their egos secondary to the goal of producing a great result. This definitely happened at Sebonack.
3. There isn't compromise in my view. There is probing, questioning and challenging. There is the thought of brilliant men focusing on an issue. If a gang of buffoons were working together the result would be poor. A team of intelligent people produce a better result.
4. (a) I think some architects could never work in a situation like this. Their egos, disrespect for the game and lack of vision wouldn't allow it. Architects with a desire for challenge, with a need to do the right thing, can work in a situation like this with no problem.
(b) Some sites wouldn't need two architects for two reasons in my mind. Financially it would make little sense in most cases. Second, some sites are just too average for it.
-
Would it be appropriate to ask what positive influences were taken away by any and/or all involved?
Mark Hissey- What did you learn from your counterpart, in the collaboraton?
-
It matters if the end product is better because we worked together.
That's the essence of my thought and question.
Does collaboration produce a better product, or does collaboration mandate compromise, which in turn produces a less creative or diminished product ?
I don't know that any of us know the answer to the question.
As I suggested, it may be site and architect specific.
However, it seems that highly successful architects of the "Golden Age" tended to share ideas and collaborate on projects.
There's a reason that government and industry cultivate
"think tanks". They tend to form a synergy for creativity.
They bring fresh opinions and divergent persepectives to the problem at hand, alternatives that one individual alone might not discover or consider.
To a degree doesn't this already exist, internally, amongst the staff within most organizations ?
Wouldn't there be benefits if it was applied externally ?
Professionally, physicians do it all the time, however, I've rarely seen lawyers adopt the process.
Perhaps that's because the practice of medicine is so highly specialized.[/color]
-
Patrick,
I think the real benefit from the collaboration would be the ideas that might disseminate from the process. Mr. Hissey alluded to some very intense meetings where there must have been a lot of synergy. Ultimately I think it matters very little who designed any course. The real benefit for all comes from the ideas, the processes that may shed light on new ways of approaching design and construction that come out of a collaboration.
I think some may want to dissect the collaboration because they probably feel that two distinct ideologies were involved in the design and they want to make certain that all of the positive features, or the features that best promote their ideology, are called out and recognized to further enhance their view of design.
Unfortunately, it may impossible to have that kind of honest, illuminating discussion that could benefit some of us because it will devolve into an accounting of which idea belongs to which camp, not at the initiation of the design participants, but rather at the initiation of others who care less about the ideas of others and care more about their own ideas.
-
Would it be appropriate to ask what positive influences were taken away by any and/or all involved?
Mark Hissey- What did you learn from your counterpart, in the collaboraton?
Adam:
I think I could write a dissertation on all of the positives from this project. I'll have to set aside some time for that because it may be of some interest to some. Off the top of my head, though I will give you a tidbit.
The inside story on this project was speed. It's easy to lose track of that, but this property was closed on July 30th, 2001. In retrospect, it could have been even quicker. But, four years to playability wasn't a bad effort.
I really have to put my mind to this though. There was a lot to learn.
As for my counterpart, I really didn't have one. I managed the project.
-
In my day job for most of the past 30 years (advising large entitites in strategy and organisation), this "one head vs. two or more heads" issue has always been central. In 99.999% of the cases, multiple heads are better than one when trying to create something or solve a difficult problem or identify and exploit an oportunity. While the .001% of "outliers" do exist, it is futile to try to find them. Also, as you increase the complexity of the task at hand, the chance of finding somebody who can do it all diminishes geometrically. I personally believe that designing and building a golf course is just too complex a task for any one individual to do better than in very active collaboration with others.
What Mark Hissey (thank you very much,Mark) describes is how such collaboration ought to work. To even think about whether or not Sebonack will be as good or better or worse than what Jack or Tom (or Rees Jones for that matter) might have done is just idle speculation. All we can know is that any individual would have designed and built a different course.
Let's enjoy Sebonack for what it is and will become over time, not for what it might have been.
-
Hopefully not straying too far off topic and to add to Rich's excellent post an interesting read that adds perspective on the collaboration efforts is a book by David Halberstam titled "The Education of a Coach".
-
I would point out toward what Mark and Rich say above that both Jack Nicklaus and I would say we agree, but when we're designing our other courses "solo" we do not try to do it all ourselves ... we each have a well-trained team which contributes in many ways to the design and construction of our courses.
I'm not sure the work is as complex as Rich makes it out to be; he included the construction of the course as well as the design to cover himself. Anyone can design a golf course, though not necessarily well.
-
Tom,
Do you think that was an invitation?
Oh yeah, it looks like he probably hit a hook!
-
Tom P
Eden resigned as Prime Minister in 1957 well before JFK got to the White House. I think the remark was made to Harold Macmillan (which makes it better, since Harry was a real crusty old fart).
Tom D
Your qualifier "not necessarily well" gets to what I was saying. I could design a golf course, but nobody but me and Huckaby would want to play it.
The "hard" bit is was really thinking about was the massive complexity of what to do and where and when on a 100+ acre piece of property. Don't you wake up some nights and wonder " Now, what could I have done differently at Pacific Dunes......????"
-
Bumping for the folks on the other thread.
I thought the article was entertaining and insightful, but not really slanted toward either party. A fun read. Too bad they didn't have a few more photos.
Thank you very much to Tom, Jim Lipe, Mark Hissey and the many other people directly and indirectly involved who have shared their thoughts on this golf course and its creation. I remember when things were first announced that there were many skeptics, and it is great to see everything turned out so well, both with the golf course and the relationship between the firms and individuals involved. Thanks for letting us have a peek into everything.
P.S. I'd like to play a course designed by Rich - at least once, anyway. :)
-
"Tom,
Do you think that was an invitation?"
Sully:
Nah, you have to understand the way Kennedy was. He was one helluva off-beat world-class charmer and he was definitely hetro if that's what you're wondering about. He was some charmer but those who knew him say he always had some purpose in it other than to just prove he could like most people. A really complex man who hid so much about himself, not the least being just how physically sick he really was most of his adult life. I think I told this on one of my odd OT posts on here in the past before you came onto this site but I bet you never knew JFK was married before Jackie, did you? Bet you didn't know he was a freshman at Princeton for one term, did you?
"Oh yeah, it looks like he probably hit a hook!"
You got to remember in JFK's day (before Watergate) the press were really hands off in some of these politician's private affairs compared to today and particularly if they liked you back then and the press generally just loved JFK. He charmed them as they'd never been charmed by a President like he charmed them. He had a great sense of humor in that world and context of politics and the press basically loved every second of it. JFK knew how to create an aura of taste and charm tinged with the preception of guts and fate and tragedy and no one ever did it better than he did, and because of the times no one probably ever will again. The fascinating thing to me is all of it wasn't almost total BS like today---some of it was real. I heard about JFK before the world knew about him. He was very close to my mother's brother at Harvard (killed in the war) and he went to motor torpedo boat school with my Dad. They all said before the world really knew him that there wasn't anyone they ever knew quite like him, except, unbelievably his brother Joe. Well, I guess I shouldn't say there never was anyone they knew quite like him. There was one named Leverett Shaw, and Frank Shields, Brooke's grandfather, was totally off the charts that way. People like that don't really exist in this day and age---it would probably be virtually impossible in the world we live in today.
-
Personally, I didn't think it was much of an article -- particularly for one that involved so many visits over such a long period.
Way too sketchy, for my tastes. Not enough description of the land or the course, not enough examples of the collaboration's roadblocks and achievements, considerably too little *flavor* of the project.
A really in-depth, John McPhee-style approach (with LOTS of pictures and sketches and topographic maps, etc.) could have been enormously educational to the average reader (including me) about what architects think about when they're looking at raw land, and at routings, and at half-finished holes. Could've gone on for 20 or 30 or 40 pages.
But, then, Golf Digest apparently quite firmly believes that golf architecture isn't worth huge expenditures of its space -- space it could be using giving you Butch Harmon's tips. Too bad. A missed opportunity.
P.S. One thing I hoped to learn from the article, but didn't: How do you pronounce "Sebonack"?
-
Dan Kellytm;
It's not that tough---Sah-bon-ik
-
OK, not touching the "who did what" question with a 10 foot pole...
But I am curious about TEPaul's post where he said that Pascucci said that Doak's proposed routing was quite different than any of the others. Anyone (who can comment) have any idea how many architects he sought "proposed routings" from? Is that a normal part of the process, or is it only done for really desireable pieces of land like Sebonac where just about every architect in the world is going to want the work?
Sah-bon-ik, eh? So its pronounced just like "ebonics" only with the 's' moved from the back to the front? I've been pronouncing in wrong in my head, but if that's the way to remember it I'll never pronounce it wrong again! ;D
-
"Tom,
Do you think that was an invitation?"
Sully:
Nah, you have to understand the way Kennedy was. He was one helluva off-beat world-class charmer and he was definitely hetro if that's what you're wondering about. He was some charmer but those who knew him say he always had some purpose in it other than to just prove he could like most people. A really complex man who hid so much about himself, not the least being just how physically sick he really was most of his adult life. I think I told this on one of my odd OT posts on here in the past before you came onto this site but I bet you never knew JFK was married before Jackie, did you? Bet you didn't know he was a freshman at Princeton for one term, did you?
"Oh yeah, it looks like he probably hit a hook!"
You got to remember in JFK's day (before Watergate) the press were really hands off in some of these politician's private affairs compared to today and particularly if they liked you back then and the press generally just loved JFK. He charmed them as they'd never been charmed by a President like he charmed them. He had a great sense of humor in that world and context of politics and the press basically loved every second of it. JFK knew how to create an aura of taste and charm tinged with the preception of guts and fate and tragedy and no one ever did it better than he did, and because of the times no one probably ever will again. The fascinating thing to me is all of it wasn't almost total BS like today---some of it was real. I heard about JFK before the world knew about him. He was very close to my mother's brother at Harvard (killed in the war) and he went to motor torpedo boat school with my Dad. They all said before the world really knew him that there wasn't anyone they ever knew quite like him, except, unbelievably his brother Joe. Well, I guess I shouldn't say there never was anyone they knew quite like him. There was one named Leverett Shaw, and Frank Shields, Brooke's grandfather, was totally off the charts that way. People like that don't really exist in this day and age---it would probably be virtually impossible in the world we live in today.
Funny how different people's views can be. I see JFK as a rich-kid playboy whose father bought him first his senate seat, and then the presidency. (Which he stole via election fraud in several places, most notably Chicago.)
He appointed his kid brother, then in his mid-30's, to maybe the 3rd most powerful position in the country. He compromised himself, and therefore the nation, with probably thousands of women, including at least one well-known spy.
As for his pain medication, the nation SHOULD have been told about that. More than just a little important to know that the commander in chief must take ten to twelve drugs per day. That secrecy is typical of the irresponsibility JFK practiced throughout his life. That the press gave and gives him a pass on all this shouts volumes about the 4th estate.
One main thing stopped the Kennedy dynasty from really taking shape. The Kennedys themselves. Ultimately, they were too self-destructive. If ever a Faustian deal was made, they fit the bill. Sadly, that seems to play out to this day. Hard to imagine a family that has suffered more tragedy -- so much of it self-inflicted.
Rant over.
-
JimN:
I don't disagree with anything you said. I didn't say I think JFK was a great president but he was a helluva show, irresponsibility, fate, tragedy, Faustianism, unlimited charm and all. He did imbue the nation with a new hope intially and then like so many he set about mismanaging the implimentation of it in a number of ways and then he was gone---into the shadow of myth, and what might have been.
You're right the Kennedys sure did steal Chicago and Cook County and I believe his popular vote victory in the nation was the slimmest in presidental history.
-
...I believe his popular vote victory in the nation was the slimmest in presidental history.
Excepting, of course, several presidents (unnamed here) whose popular vote "victories" were actually negative numbers. ;)
-
JimN:
I don't disagree with anything you said. I didn't say I think JFK was a great president but he was a helluva show, irresponsibility, fate, tragedy, Faustianism, unlimited charm and all. He did imbue the nation with a new hope intially and then like so many he set about mismanaging the implimentation of it in a number of ways and then he was gone---into the shadow of myth, and what might have been.
You're right the Kennedys sure did steal Chicago and Cook County and I believe his popular vote victory in the nation was the slimmest in presidental history.
Ahh, sorry Tom, I thought I was hearing admiration. He was very charming.
-
Funny how different people's views can be.
I see JFK as a rich-kid playboy whose father bought him first his senate seat, and then the presidency. (Which he stole via election fraud in several places, most notably Chicago.)
Jim,
Do rich kid playboys join the military and serve with heroic distinction in COMBAT ?
Neither Cook County or his father won the election for him.
It was TV...... and the debates which were televised.
He was charming, had a great sense of humor, was young, had a beautiful, stylish wife and knew how to deal with the media.
The book and the movie, "The Last Hurrah" touches on how politics transformed, or was transformed by the transition to the medium of television.
Certain individuals were a perfect match for TV and the media.
Kennedy, Regan and Cllinton were amongst them.[/color]
He appointed his kid brother, then in his mid-30's, to maybe the 3rd most powerful position in the country.
# 3 is a little high.
He appointed someone he trusted, who was bright and energetic. When you look at his choice, and compare it to others that preceded and followed, it's pretty good.[/color]
He compromised himself, and therefore the nation, with probably thousands of women, including at least one well-known spy.
Thousands ? I'm starting to like him better already.
If you think the Prime Ministers and Presidents that preceded him were squeeky clean, you're naive. You may prefer the Jimmy Carter type, I don't.
If you're refering to Judith Exner, she wasn't a spy.[/color]
As for his pain medication, the nation SHOULD have been told about that. More than just a little important to know that the commander in chief must take ten to twelve drugs per day. That secrecy is typical of the irresponsibility JFK practiced throughout his life. That the press gave and gives him a pass on all this shouts volumes about the 4th estate.
The press protected all of the Presidents, respected the offices of power and peoples private lives prior to Watergate.
Roosevelt's condition was kept from the American people.
Some say Regan's was as well.
JFK's pain medication was nobody's business except his and his physician's. I"m not worried about someone's back being out of kilter, I"m worried about their brain being out of kilter.
JFK remained sharp as a tack up until his untimely death.
Today, a law known as HIPPA protects patient's privacy.
The press in 1960 was far, far different than the press of today.[/color]
One main thing stopped the Kennedy dynasty from really taking shape. The Kennedys themselves. Ultimately, they were too self-destructive. If ever a Faustian deal was made, they fit the bill. Sadly, that seems to play out to this day. Hard to imagine a family that has suffered more tragedy -- so much of it self-inflicted.
I admire the Kennedy's, the Bush's, The Rockerfellers and the Bloomberg's of the world.
They could have led lives of leasure, yet, they dedicated themselves to public service, in an elective and openly hostile environment.
LUCK has a lot more to do with tradgedy than you think.[/color]
Rant over.
-
Patrick,
I couldn't agree more.
I'd take a thousand womanizing, "morally deficient" presidents over the sort of self-professed, hypocritical guardians of morality sitting in Washington today.
Seriously, has anyone ever listened to Dick Nixon's private discussions that were finally released recently? Now there's a guy who seriously needed to get some.
By the way, the GD Sebonack article focused much more on the personalities involved than the golf course itself, which is a fair angle.
Of course, Whitten writes for a different audience in that mag than the GCA set, and I'm sure his editors were much more interested in it from the standpoint of "Old Lion/Young Hotshot kid/Owner Input" for their more casual readers.
-
Patrick,
Seriously, has anyone ever listened to Dick Nixon's private discussions that were finally released recently? Now there's a guy who seriously needed to get some.
Michael,
I'm busting a gut. Classic ;D
Mike
-
:-X :-X :-X :-X
Have a nice weekend everyone.
-
:-X :-X :-X :-X
Have a nice weekend everyone.
George --
I, for one, am very proud of you.
Have a great weekend.
Dan
-
"If you're refering to Judith Exner, she wasn't a spy."
Pat:
Judith Exner wasn't the so-called spy. Judith Exner was the one known as the girlfiend of Chicago Mob Boss Sam Giancana. The so-called spy that JFK had an affair with and some say may've even loved I'm quite sure was well before he was the President and apparently before he was married.
But who knew JFK was married before Jackie and who knew JFK was a freshman at Princeton---that is before I told you?? ;)
-
Patrick M
Poor old Jimmy Carter takes a kicking these days even from liberals. Tell you what, he is the ONLY president in my lifetime to be honest and forthright with the American public. His entire campaign was based on nothing more than "I will do the best I can." It isn't surprising, given how foolish the American electorate can and usually is, that he lost the election to the actor.
I am not saying Jimmy was a great president, he wasn't, but then I have yet to witness a great president in action. What I am saying is that Jimmy Carter is the only president in my lifetime with any sense morals and a respect for the electorate. All the others have taken the piss and Americans drink it gleefully.
Ciao
Sean
-
with a major babe like Jackie I wonder why JFK had to look elsewhere ???
-
Paul
Show me the hottest girl on the planet and I'll show you a guy who is tired of boinking her... ;D
-
Patrick M
Poor old Jimmy Carter takes a kicking these days even from liberals. Tell you what, he is the ONLY president in my lifetime to be honest and forthright with the American public. His entire campaign was based on nothing more than "I will do the best I can."
How do you KNOW that he was honest and forthright ?
Like letting Cuba empty the inmates from their prisons and asylums on our shores. Where was his responsibiity to the American people on that one ?
Like letting interest rates hit historical highs, highs that we've never again come close to reaching. Interest rates were in the 19-21 % range. Try buying a house under those terms.
Like letting Iran take over our Embassy,
Like making the military so inept that their helicopters couldn't operate in the desert.
Perhaps you haven't heard, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I want a man of judgement and action in the steering and defending of America, not a naive do-gooder.
I'll take Bill Clinton, Lyndon Johnson or Jack Kennedy every time over Jimmy Carter.
It isn't surprising, given how foolish the American electorate can and usually is, that he lost the election to the actor.
There's a reason for that. Regan was a better President.
Harry Truman, one of America's great President's was a tailor, so what ? He performed admirably in office.
Regan was Governor of California and elected to TWO terms as President. Carter was rejected because he was inept.
Regan brought down the Berlin Wall, broke the Russian's back, ended the Cold War, brought interest rates down to tolerable levels, got the economy moving again and built up America's military strength. That's not a bad act
Tell me again how Carter distinguished himself in office ?
And, why was he voted out of office if he did such a great job ?[/color]
I am not saying Jimmy was a great president, he wasn't, but then I have yet to witness a great president in action.
I'll attribute that remark to the improprieties of youth.
What do you do for a living ?
How would you rank yourself amongst your peers ?[/color]
What I am saying is that Jimmy Carter is the only president in my lifetime with any sense morals and a respect for the electorate.
How do you come to that conclusion ?
What personal information do you have that supports your statement ? Or, is that just your impression from TV ?[/color]
All the others have taken the piss and Americans drink it gleefully.
What political heads of the nations of the world, free or oppressed, have better track records for being leaders of their nations and of the world ?[/color]
Everybody bashes America and its leaders until they get in trouble, then we're called upon to bail them out.
The world is littered with the bodies of American soldiers who died protecting and fighting for other peoples freedoms and causes.
How quickly everyone forgets.
Sharper than a serpent's tooth ......[/color]
-
Funny how different people's views can be.
I see JFK as a rich-kid playboy whose father bought him first his senate seat, and then the presidency. (Which he stole via election fraud in several places, most notably Chicago.)
Jim,
Do rich kid playboys join the military and serve with heroic distinction in COMBAT ?
Neither Cook County or his father won the election for him.
It was TV...... and the debates which were televised.
He was charming, had a great sense of humor, was young, had a beautiful, stylish wife and knew how to deal with the media.
The book and the movie, "The Last Hurrah" touches on how politics transformed, or was transformed by the transition to the medium of television.
Certain individuals were a perfect match for TV and the media.
Kennedy, Regan and Cllinton were amongst them.[/color]
He appointed his kid brother, then in his mid-30's, to maybe the 3rd most powerful position in the country.
# 3 is a little high.
He appointed someone he trusted, who was bright and energetic. When you look at his choice, and compare it to others that preceded and followed, it's pretty good.[/color]
He compromised himself, and therefore the nation, with probably thousands of women, including at least one well-known spy.
Thousands ? I'm starting to like him better already.
If you think the Prime Ministers and Presidents that preceded him were squeeky clean, you're naive. You may prefer the Jimmy Carter type, I don't.
If you're refering to Judith Exner, she wasn't a spy.[/color]
As for his pain medication, the nation SHOULD have been told about that. More than just a little important to know that the commander in chief must take ten to twelve drugs per day. That secrecy is typical of the irresponsibility JFK practiced throughout his life. That the press gave and gives him a pass on all this shouts volumes about the 4th estate.
The press protected all of the Presidents, respected the offices of power and peoples private lives prior to Watergate.
Roosevelt's condition was kept from the American people.
Some say Regan's was as well.
JFK's pain medication was nobody's business except his and his physician's. I"m not worried about someone's back being out of kilter, I"m worried about their brain being out of kilter.
JFK remained sharp as a tack up until his untimely death.
Today, a law known as HIPPA protects patient's privacy.
The press in 1960 was far, far different than the press of today.[/color]
One main thing stopped the Kennedy dynasty from really taking shape. The Kennedys themselves. Ultimately, they were too self-destructive. If ever a Faustian deal was made, they fit the bill. Sadly, that seems to play out to this day. Hard to imagine a family that has suffered more tragedy -- so much of it self-inflicted.
I admire the Kennedy's, the Bush's, The Rockerfellers and the Bloomberg's of the world.
They could have led lives of leasure, yet, they dedicated themselves to public service, in an elective and openly hostile environment.
LUCK has a lot more to do with tradgedy than you think.[/color]
Rant over.
Patrick, Kennedy shined in the debates. No question. He still loses the election if not for the hijinx in Chicago.
I don't know exactly where Attorney General stands in the power hierarchy. I do believe it is one of the several key positions in the U.S, and therefore the world. IMO no president should appoint his brother to that position. The potential conflicts of interest and nepotism are too glaring. JFK did it to put another building block in the growing Kennedy dynasty. You don't think father Joe may have had something to do with that, do you?
Sexual affairs: for most men that is their business and no one else's but maybe their family's. A president is different. It leaves him open to blackmail. He can become compromised. He can make poor or terrible errors in judgement. Clinton repeatedly refusing to admit the truth about Monica, and all that followed is one example. There are also reports, unsubstantiated, that JFK was blackmailed over at least one of his affairs, the one with Exner, who at the same time was a mistress of mafia boss Sam Giancana.
Exner is not the spy I was thinking of. (Though the problem of a prez bedding the mafia chief's mistress is a vast problem by itself.) JFK apparently had affairs with a German spy during WWII -- he almost got kicked out of the navy over it and may have been sent to the South Pacific because of it (where his service was mostly a mess) -- and then again with an East German spy, Ellen Rometsch, after he became president.
Most chilling of all, Kennedy's womanizing may have contributed to his death. Instead of constantly refining and working on safety procedures, he had his Secret Service agents finding women for him. (And often sharing in the fun). In fact, several of them spent the night of November 21 drinking in a Fort Worth bar.
On November 22, the secret service broke procedure in what has been called unprecedented ways. This made the assassination much easier. If JFK had kept things more professional -- if he hadn't been conducting a womanizing free-for-all with the men who were supposed to guard his life -- history may have turned out very different that day.
JFK's mind was sharp to the end? I wonder how you know. He reportedly was taking ten to twelve pain drugs per day. Would surprise me if they did not muddle his thinking.
The health of a president should NEVER be private. It's too important to the nation. We need to know if the prez has a serious or fatal disease (as JFK did, though he always lied about that to the nation).
More generally, privacy is one privilege you must give up, if you want to hold that position. We darn well need to know the president's foibles, weaknesses, vulnerabilities. The world's fate rests on his shoulders. (At some point, maybe soon, "his" will be "hers".)
I really hope HIPPA does not apply to the prez. If so, p.c. thinking has sunk to new self-destructive lows.
Maybe the biggest difference in our point of view lies in admiration of the Kennedys, Bushes, Rockefellers, etc. IMO they did not dedicate themselves to public service. They dedicated themselves to power. "Public service" was the means, the vehicle they used to achieve it. They parlayed their vast wealth into vast executive and political power. So much so that David Rockefeller supposedly considered the presidency a demotion from his own position.
Thank God, or whatever entity you choose, that our system still puts some limits on what the powerful can do. Even so, these multi-generational dynasties are a real danger to freedom. They seem to have an almost rock-and-roll appeal to many of the people. Sad.
BTW, whenever we see corruption, lies or abuse in our government, I believe it is critical the world learns about it. No matter which party is in power. It's the only way to keep the old adage about power and corruption from drowning us.
-
Sean Arble:
I just love your post #68! I love it!! You and I are in complete agreement on that. ;)
Paul:
Why did JFK look elsewhere when he had a wife like Jackie? One would wonder about that looking at Jackie, wouldn't one? My feeling on that has always been having grown up in that time and having spent some time around those people that as glamorous as they looked and acted publicly (and I mean "publicly" in a very general sense here) basically the both of them had areas of emotional immaturity that was pretty remarkable and some might say pretty scary. Famous and ultra high-profile people like that, if one looks closely at them, tend to be very complex people and in my opinion both JFK and Jackie were definitely that. I think it's pretty safe to say that about many of that clan. Like them or hate them, or what they proposed and stood for, I just thought at the base of it all they certainly were interesting people. Some of the things they said and did, in private vs in public were pretty astounding to me but for some reason----maybe it was their extraordinary Irish charm or maybe it was that odd sort of sad look of destiny and passion they seemed to all have---they fascinated me more than most any others I saw in my lifetime.
Love the "Kennedy Era" or hate it, I think the fact that it happened, and happened as it did, basically made American history that much richer and more interesting. For my part to be truly fascinated by something or someone I don't have to agree with everything they say and do. Others may totally disagree with that but I don't care--it's just the way I feel. ;)
-
Jim Nugent:
It seems like you're pretty down on American political dynasties particularly if they have a ton of money. I don't necessarily agree with you on that.
But Kennedy the dangerous risk-taker, even when he was the President of the United States, was apparently pretty scary and seems to be getting scarier as the tight lid that was kept on it comes loose over time and with continuously declassified material. I do recall that interview about ten years ago with one of his primary SS guys who basically admitted he felt completely compromised by JFK and his shennanigans.
I may've put this on this website before (can't remember) and I'm sure many will scream over it as another of my "stories" but when I was young guy---It must have been '62 or '63 I was driving up North Ocean or North County Blvd in Palm Beach pretty fast one day in the spring and out of a driveway (the houses on N. Ocean Blvd are highly vegetated so you can't see in) pops a car right in front of me and slams on the brakes so the whole car is right in front of me. I'm going about 50 or more and here's this whole car less than 20 yards in front of me.
I remember well the hot adrenaline rush to my head as I thought instantly I was going to die this time---I was looking right at the wide-eyed JFK at the wheel and Peter Lawford beside him. I swerved left, shut my eyes waiting for the collision but it didn't happen. When I knew I was by them I looked in my rear-view mirror and they were turning left and going south on North Ocean Blvd.
A bit later it occured to me because of the papers that JFK had been given that house by a Cuban bigwig ironically named Col Paul and that house was right next to my friends the Magowans.
But what in the world was the President of the United States doing driving a car with someone like Peter Lawford? I don't know what the Secret Service rules and procedures were back then but I do know that could not have been right or proper. Obviously Kennedy had given his SS guys the slip and was going God knows where, but it probably wasn't shopping.
Don't worry about JFK's affair with mob moll Judith Exner giving the Chicago mob any leverage over JFK. If he thought that would happen I have no doubt he would've gotten the CIA to contract the New York mob to take care of Giancana and his meddling hoods. That probably would've occured right after the New Orleans/Chicago mob cabal screwed up their contract from Kennedy through the CIA to assasinate Fidel Castro. ;)
The only guy who got more leverage on JFK for stuff like Exner was J, Edgar Hoover but Kennedy knew enough about that game to know Hoover had so much leverage on him already that Exner really didn't matter. ;)
Even LBJ knew there was nothing he could do to Hoover prompting LBJ to remark; "Well, I'd rather have the guy inside pissing out than outside pissing in." ;)
What does any of this stuff have to do with the GD article on Sebonac? Who the hell started all this OT Kennedy stuff? It surely couldn't have been me.
-
Patrick, Kennedy shined in the debates. No question. He still loses the election if not for the hijinx in Chicago.
And there was no other hijinx in any other voting district in the entire nation ? Please, open up your eyes.[/color]
I don't know exactly where Attorney General stands in the power hierarchy. I do believe it is one of the several key positions in the U.S, and therefore the world. IMO no president should appoint his brother to that position. The potential conflicts of interest and nepotism are too glaring. JFK did it to put another building block in the growing Kennedy dynasty. You don't think father Joe may have had something to do with that, do you?
No, absolutely not.
The Attorney General is an appointee.
Do you think a President is going to appoint an advesary ?
Bobby Kennedy was highly qualified and served with distinction. How would you compare him to those who followed in his position ?[/color]
Sexual affairs: for most men that is their business and no one else's but maybe their family's. A president is different. It leaves him open to blackmail. He can become compromised. He can make poor or terrible errors in judgement.
Let's see, who's a prime candidate for blackmail ?
Oh, I know, let's blackmail the most powerful individual in the world. The guy who has a little to say to the IRS, FBI, CIA and other agencies. I wonder how the actuaries calculate the life expectancy of that fellow ?
How can having extramarital sex cause a President, who as reems of advisors, to make poor or terrible Presidential decisions ?[/color]
Clinton repeatedly refusing to admit the truth about Monica, and all that followed is one example.
Had Monica been an outsider, a model or an actress, nothing would have come of it. Instead, she was an EMPLOYEE, a subordinate, and therein lies the major problem.
You should also have noticed the deafening silence from the Women's groups when this incident, the prototypical scenario they abhor, occured. While they marched on the steps of the Supreme Court prior to and during the Clarence Thomas hearings, they were silent as lambs during this affair.[/color]
There are also reports, UNSUBSTANTIATED, that JFK was blackmailed over at least one of his affairs, the one with Exner, who at the same time was a mistress of mafia boss Sam Giancana.
How can you offer Unsubstantiated rumors as support for your position ? It's disengenuous.[/color]
Exner is not the spy I was thinking of. (Though the problem of a prez bedding the mafia chief's mistress is a vast problem by itself.)
JFK apparently had affairs with a German spy during WWII -- he almost got kicked out of the navy over it and may have been sent to the South Pacific because of it (where his service was mostly a mess) --
Apparently ?
Who was the spy ?
In what year and where did the affair take place ?
Is this fact or fiction ?[/color]
and then again with an East German spy, Ellen Rometsch, after he became president.
Most chilling of all, Kennedy's womanizing may have contributed to his death. Instead of constantly refining and working on safety procedures, he had his Secret Service agents finding women for him.
I don't think Kennedy had any problem finding women.
If you're delusional enough to think that refining safety procedures would have saved his life, you're entitled to that fantasy.[/color]
(And often sharing in the fun). In fact, several of them spent the night of November 21 drinking in a Fort Worth bar.
So what ?
Would the outcome have been different if they went to a Walt Disney movie ?[/color]
On November 22, the secret service broke procedure in what has been called unprecedented ways. This made the assassination much easier. If JFK had kept things more professional -- if he hadn't been conducting a womanizing free-for-all with the men who were supposed to guard his life -- history may have turned out very different that day.
That's both absurd and delusional[/color]
JFK's mind was sharp to the end? I wonder how you know. He reportedly was taking ten to twelve pain drugs per day. Would surprise me if they did not muddle his thinking.
It's simple, look at his activities, listen to his speeches, look at his traveling, all were normal.
What were the names of the ten to twelve pain drugs that you allege he was taking every day ?
Who reported that he was taking ten to twelve pain drugs per day ?
I think you're short on facts and long on speculation.[/color]
The health of a president should NEVER be private. It's too important to the nation. We need to know if the prez has a serious or fatal disease (as JFK did, though he always lied about that to the nation).
Why ?
And, what serious or fatal disease did JFK have that prevented him from carrying out his duties ? [/color]
More generally, privacy is one privilege you must give up, if you want to hold that position.
WHY ?[/color]
We darn well need to know the president's foibles, weaknesses, vulnerabilities.
WHY ?
What are you going to do when he's in office, impeach him for having cancer ?[/color]
The world's fate rests on his shoulders. (At some point, maybe soon, "his" will be "hers".)
I really hope HIPPA does not apply to the prez. If so, p.c. thinking has sunk to new self-destructive lows.
Maybe the biggest difference in our point of view lies in admiration of the Kennedys, Bushes, Rockefellers, etc. IMO they did not dedicate themselves to public service. They dedicated themselves to power. "Public service" was the means, the vehicle they used to achieve it. They parlayed their vast wealth into vast executive and political power. So much so that David Rockefeller SUPPOSEDLY considered the presidency a demotion from his own position.
There you go again, using alleged third party hearsay to bolster your position.
Nonsense.
They had power, they had riches.
They sought public service and had to have the American people ELECT them to office.[/color]
Thank God, or whatever entity you choose, that our system still puts some limits on what the powerful can do. Even so, these multi-generational dynasties are a real danger to freedom. They seem to have an almost rock-and-roll appeal to many of the people. Sad.
If there were better qualified people, the electorate would have voted for them, but they didn't, they voted for the Kennedy's, the Bushes, the Rockerfellers, the Bloombergs and the people are better for their service.[/color]
BTW, whenever we see corruption, lies or abuse in our government, I believe it is critical the world learns about it. No matter which party is in power. It's the only way to keep the old adage about power and corruption from drowning us.
I'd agree, but, I'd differentiate between illusory and substantive.[/color]
-
Jim Nugent:
It seems like you're pretty down on American political dynasties particularly if they have a ton of money. I don't necessarily agree with you on that.
What does any of this stuff have to do with the GD article on Sebonac? Who the hell started all this OT Kennedy stuff? It surely couldn't have been me.
Tom, it's not just American, and they don't have to have money.
Think I get the blame, or credit, for escalating this discussion.
-
I bet Tom D. is glad this thread has gone OT. For all you Kennedy people I have shelves of Kennedy books and audio tapes of speeches I would be pleased to send to you. I want to get rid of them before my kids start to snoop around them and get caught in the fanciful trap I got caught in because of the Kennedy mystique. Read a book by Seymour Hirsch on the Kennedys, then read "The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt", by Edmund Morris and you will get a great lesson in what an American President should be. I may keep the White book on the Making of a President, the first political book I read and is one of the few books that sticks with you, it was such a great book. Now I must get back to watching France burn which has been pure enjoyment for this stupid, idiotic American voter who drinks the piss of American Presidents.
-
"Sexual affairs: for most men that is their business and no one else's but maybe their family's. A president is different. It leaves him open to blackmail. He can become compromised. He can make poor or terrible errors in judgement."
Listen all you illogical political and presidential Monday Morning Quarterbacks----I already told you on this thread that JFK admitted seriously to Anothony Eden or Harold MacMillian (or whomever the hell it was the Brits sent over to meet JFK in the Bahamas) that if he didn't have sex everyday he suffered from severe headaches.
Now look, we all know Jackie wasn't around the White House or JFK every day so what do you Monday Morning Quarterbacks think was more dangerous to the making of world-effecting decisions and consequently the safety of the nation;
1/ A President who was boinking mob molls and international spies?
or,
2/ A president suffering from severe headaches every day?
I think it's pretty damn obvious that #2 would've been far more dangerous to his decision making and consequently the health and safety of the Nation.
And don't try giving me some crap like he could've taken a few aspriins every day along with the other 95 pain killers and drugs he was taking. Anyone knows that kind of answer is uninteresting, boring and no fun at all.
"Now I must get back to watching France burn which has been pure enjoyment for this stupid, idiotic American voter who drinks the piss of American Presidents"
Kelly:
That's one of the funnier things I've ever seen on here. I mean it's almost incalcuable how enjoyable it is to sit comfortably in one's American livingroom and watch France burn. Perhaps Bush and Condi can send them some Sarah Lees!
-
19,989 -- and a thread gone seriously OT.
This could be the day!
Mesdames et messieurs, les jeux sont faits! Les jeux sont faits!
-
"Mesdames et messieurs, les jeux sont faits! Les jeux sont faits!"
Little Danny Boy, go immediately to the bathroom and wash your mouth out for using that language!
-
Has this thread wandered a greater distance AND more quickly off-topic than any other in history?
-
"Has this thread wandered a greater distance AND more quickly off-topic than any other in history?"
No Sir, another perfectly good golf architecture thread was co-opted OFF TOPIC by stockcar driver Glenn (Fireball) Roberts and it wandered a much greater distance off topic, from some golf course somewhere to Daytona Beach, Florida first and then to LeMans, France, and a whole lot quicker than this thread went OT too. Fireball had very little if anything to do with golf and definitely zero to do with golf architecture but he defiinitely was quick!
At least Kennedy played golf sometimes and here's a neat little story about Kennedy at a golf course;
Probably around '61 Kennedy came down from Palm Beach to Gulf Stream G.C. in Delray and since he was the President obviously there were loads of members and people there to see him. My Dad went up to the club to watch.
I already mentioned that maybe back around 1942 or so Dad went to motor torpedo boat school in Chicago with Kennedy and after that he didn't see him again.
So Dad being the kind of shy and retiring guy he was he was just standing way back behind the crowd that Kennedy was shaking hands with. Kennedy looked back there and saw him and just very casually said;
"Hi, Jim, how've you been?",
And on he went. Dad was just amazed that he could not only recognize him after maybe twenty years but that he could actually remember his name.
-
I am not sure how anyone gains pleasure from watching gangs of youths burn cars and buildings. Would it be funny if the Philly ghettos were on fire rather than Paris ghettos?
Ciao
Sean
-
Sean,
We've had our share of that in Philadelphia. Perhaps the method that the US takes to assimilate immigrants in contrast to that of Europe prevents these sorts of outrages. We may actually have learned a lesson 40 years or so ago in the Civil Rights movement.
But twenty years ago, Philadelphia's Osage Avenue was the site of a stunning use of force by city police. After a long standoff, police dropped a bomb on the headquarters of a radical group called MOVE, sparking a fire that gutted a neighborhood and left 11 people dead. Five were children.
MOVE was a radical cult-like group that preached revolution, advocating a return to nature and a society without government, police or technology. The group took up residence on Osage Avenue, a quiet tree-lined street of tidy row houses. Except for the MOVE house. The windows and doors of 6221 Osage Ave. were barricaded with plywood. The group hoarded weapons, built a giant wooden bunker on the roof and used a bullhorn to scream obscenities all hours of the night.
Frustrated neighbors turned to city officials for help. On the morning of May 13, 1985, dozens of Philadelphia police, fire fighters and city officials amassed around the MOVE house to force the group out. A standoff ensued, as MOVE members bunkered down inside the house exchanged gunfire with police outside. At 5:30 that evening, Mayor Wilson Good ordered a Philadelphia police helicopter to drop a bomb onto the roof of the house in an effort to drive MOVE members out.
-
Wayne
I remember the incident very well. Though I don't recall being amused.
Ciao
Sean
-
Sean,
It is not so much the burning and mayhem that is so amusing, rather there are so many small bands of misunderstood people it's hard for the French army to know who to surrender to.
-
S-A-R-C-A-S-M
It's Kelly's specialty. :)
-
Oh, I get it. This is the anti French element over the French not supporting the Bush/Blair mess in Iraq. Are y'all still anti-whoever dares speak against the war? I would have thought you folks would have found some other whipping boy by now. Say, some South American country. I am sure there must be one that has wronged the US somehow.
While in NC, I was sure that I heard loads of news reports about insurgents in Iraq. As this was a completely new term to desribe anti-American action in Iraq, it took me a few minutes to figure out what the report was about. I was thinking American and British forces were the insurgents. Of course, this report was a uniquely American spin on events. Everything suddenly clicked, I was back in the Home of the Free.
I was heartened to see Blair lose the parliamentary vote on 90 day detainment. At least there are a few politicians that have sifted through the rhetoric of our times.
Ciao
Sean
-
"Wayne
I remember the incident very well. Though I don't recall being amused. "
That is because there is no humor in these sorts of tragedies.
As to the French. Well they make their own problems and can't solve them.
How proud can you be of a nation that conducts policies to undermine allies just because they are weak and ineffective and have been for generations and wish to feel important? They are a sorry lot when it comes to doing the right thing for its own sake. They have so much national pride and many reasons for feeling so. Yet they constantly abandon good sense just to remind the world that they are important and try to create situations that demonstrate it. Like Clinton saying he still was relevant after all his scandals, France keeps reminding us (really themselves) of how relevant they are when in fact they are hardly that.
Then you look at how they treat minorities in their country where they take measures to inhibit any sense of multiculturalism. It is no wonder they are having these problems. Sorry, but the only thing the French support are the French. They wouldn't let us fly our planes over their country in the first Gulf War. Our pilots were at greater risk because they cared more about how much money Iraq owed them than doing the right thing.
France is a great country, too bad there are so many Frenchmen in it ;)
-
"France is a great country, too bad there are so many Frenchmen in it :)"
Wayne:
Actually that was a sentiment of Charles de Gaulle. It would be nice to find a way to get rid of all the Frenchmen in France and then if we wanted to take care of France in our foreign policy we could spend some green-backs on all those lonely french women over there. Hell, I might even volunteer for the new Peace Corps and go to France.
-
I'll volunteer for that Piece, er Peace Corps. I had a boyhood crush on Claudine Longet.
(http://home.earthlink.net/~nuttbait/claudinelongetflower.jpg)
Here's some funny magazine spoofs:
(http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/u/R/french_soldierofsurrender.jpg)
(http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/J/S/chirac_sweetsurrender.jpg)
A few one-liners:
"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes." —Mark Twain
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." —General George S. Patton
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." —Norman Schwartzkopf
"We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it." —Marge Simpson
"As far as I'm concerned, war always means failure." —Jacques Chirac, President of France
"As far as France is concerned, you're right." —Rush Limbaugh
"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee." —Regis Philbin
"The French are a smallish, monkey-looking bunch and not dressed any better, on average, than the citizens of Baltimore. True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whiskey I don't know." —P.J O'Rourke (1989)
"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it." —John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona
"They've taken their own precautions against Al Qaeda. To prepare for an attack, each Frenchman is urged to keep duct tape, a white flag, and a three-day supply of mistresses in the house." —Argus Hamilton
"The only way the French are going in is if we tell them we found truffles in Iraq." —Dennis Miller
"I would call the French scumbags, but that, of course, would be a disservice to bags filled with scum. I say we invade Iraq, then invade Chirac." —Dennis Miller
"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He IS French, people." —Conan O'Brien
"I don't know why people are surprised that France won't help us get Saddam out of Iraq. After all, France wouldn't help us get the Germans out of France!" —Jay Leno
"The last time the French asked for 'more proof,' it came marching into Paris under a German flag." —David Letterman
-
George Pazin: You're making me out to be some sort of bad, bitter guy. It's just been a week of T.O. coverage that may be showing through, I'm not so bad. :)
Wait Tom Paul, before you get rid of all the Frenchmen basketball has started and I like the Spurs and we need Tony PArker.
Sean, Sean, maybe you need to take a break from the mosque, you know instead of going to prayers everyday just take a walk, play some golf, everythings going to be okay.
-
Wayne
The Schwartzkopf is very good.
Kelly
I need more than a break! For the moment, I would be satisfied if Tony and George would take a permanent break. Soon enough, my day will come.
Ciao
Sean
-
Aren't we supposed to talk about the Golf Digest Article, regarding Sebonack Golf Club and not about politics. This is the trend that I see this forum going to. We need to all stop this and concentrate on the topic being presented.
Chris Munoz
-
Way back on the first page of this topic - when the topic was still Sebonack, rather than France and the Kennedys, Tom Doak indicated that there would be an article on the Doak / Nicklaus collaboration in the upcoming 2006 issue of Golf Architecture magazine (yes, appreciate the plug Tom and the cheque is in the mail!). The chosen format is a question and answer one, so people will be able to see Jack and Tom's responses to the same questions, so the contributions are clearly identifiable. If they had collaborated on an article together, we wouldn't have known who wrote which particular words, and who was responsible for the beautiful semi-colon in paragraph three! ;D
Any interested people can subscribe on our website www.sagca.org.au and all our 8 back issues are still available.
As someone with limited interest in American politics, can I suggest you start an OT thread if you want to discuss such subjects, or better yet, do it on a political discussion group :o Still enjoyed the French quotes though!
cheers Neil
-
Amazing, the direction this thread has taken. Wow.
I just read Ron's article today, and enjoyed it very much. I thought it was very well done. And, boy, those photos of Sebonack are a tease! The golf course looks very, very interesting in those aerials, doesn't it.
Great idea for the Q&A with Jack and Tom, Neil. I look forward to it. I better get to work on my contribution to GA2006, knowing the Nicklaus/Doak feature's in there!
-
Back to JFK!
Patrick -- Kennedy's drug use is well documented. From the NYT: "By the time of the missile crisis, Kennedy was taking antispasmodics to control colitis; antibiotics for a urinary tract infection; and increased amounts of hydrocortisone and testosterone, along with salt tablets, to control his adrenal insufficiency and boost his energy."
And, "The records show that Kennedy variously took codeine, Demerol and methadone for pain; Ritalin, a stimulant; meprobamate and librium for anxiety; barbiturates for sleep; thyroid hormone; and injections of a blood derivative, gamma globulin, presumably to combat infections.
"In the White House, Kennedy received "seven to eight injections of procaine in his back in the same sitting" before news conferences and other events, Dr. Kelman said."
Again from the NYT, "As president, he was famous for having a bad back, and since his death, biographers have pieced together details of other illnesses, including persistent digestive problems and Addison's disease, a life-threatening lack of adrenal function." (Pat, there's the life-threatening illness you wondered about, that JFK hid and lied about.)
"But newly disclosed medical files covering the last eight years of Kennedy's life, including X-rays and prescription records, show that he took painkillers, antianxiety agents, stimulants and sleeping pills, as well as hormones to keep him alive, with extra doses in times of stress."
If you have any question about the side effects of just one of these drugs, do a quick google search. Now throw them together into a twelve, ten or eight-drug cocktail. You get the potential for explosive abuse.
The nation should have been told about Kennedy's health problems and need for drugs, before JFK got elected. It is a key issue. Instead, Kennedy lied to the nation, to project his false image of strength.
JFK's womanizing: the fact of it is beyond question. It created problems for him. Here is how JFK biographer Robert Dallek describes Kennedy's affair with the East German woman in 1963...
"The most reckless one, of course, was the affair he had with a woman named Ellen Rometsch, who was of German origin.
"She grew up and lived in East Germany for a while.
"There were suspicions that she may have been an East German spy.
"That's never been proved, and is probably false, but even the perception that he was having an affair, or had sex, with an East German woman who could be accused of spying was a very dangerous thing to do.
"In the background, of course, in the spring of '63, was the Profumo scandal.
"The minister of war in Great Britain and the Macmillan Government, that was driven out of power over this scandal because the call girl, Christine Keeller, that Profumo was having an affair with was also having an affair with a Russian Embassy official. (And you question, Patrick, that Kennedy could be blackmailed?)
"So Kennedy knew about all this, and Robert Kennedy, Jack's brother, in cahoots with J Edgar Hoover, the director of the FBI, they deported this Ellen Rometsch, sent her back to Germany so that she could not be around to talk to the press or testify before a Senate committee because there was some discussion on the possibility of having a Senate committee investigation.
"Now, Kennedy got wind of it and he told Ben Bradlee, this Washington Post editor, that if the Senate decided on some kind of investigation of sex activities at the White House, it was going to rebound against them because Kennedy said a lot of these senators were carrying on as well and the Kennedy White House, it was implied, was going to leak to the press all the information about the senators' transgressions."
How sweet. JFK screws around with a woman who may have been a spy. (Many others have no doubts on that count. e.g. George Stephanopolous, on CNN, called her an East German spy.) Kennedy's brother, who conveniently happens to be AG, immediately deports her. JFK then threatens blackmail to keep the affair secret. As Bradlee wrote in his book, "Conversations With Kennedy": ''There is something incredible about the picture of the President of the United States and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation looking at photographs of call girls over lunch.'' Of course, it's not incredible, if Hoover is using that information to influence JFK. That is called blackmail.
A little more from Dallek, on how Kennedy's thirst for women led him into dangerous waters...
"Kennedy would use the White House swimming pool for these sex parties, and there was a guy named Bobby Baker who was the secretary of the Senate and he would bring over call girls to the White House.
"But it wasn't just at the White House - Kennedy would go off on these trips and they would bring call girls to him."
It's also well documented that the Secret Service procured women for JFK.
Sex scandals can and have brought down national leaders. Knowing this, Kennedy still went way over the top. He put his presidency in peril. He then abused his power to cover it up. Stephanopolous even called that technique the Rometsch Strategy.
This is getting long. So part two -- I'm sure everyone is waiting for it with bated breath -- to come.
-
Sex scandals can and have brought down national leaders.
Not in France..... ;)
-
JFK's womanizing: the fact of it is beyond question. It created problems for him. Here is how JFK biographer Robert Dallek describes Kennedy's affair with the East German woman in 1963...
"The most reckless one, of course, was the affair he had with a woman named Ellen Rometsch, who was of German origin.
"She grew up and lived in East Germany for a while.
"There were SUSPICIONS that she may have been an East German spy.
Rumor also has it that she was a Soviet spy[/color]
"That's never been proved, and is probably false, but even the perception that he was having an affair, or had sex, with an East German woman who could be accused of spying was a very dangerous thing to do.
SURE, Like he would say, "I'll give you the launch codes, if you'll take off your clothes"[/color]
"In the background, of course, in the spring of '63, was the Profumo scandal.
"The minister of war in Great Britain and the Macmillan Government, that was driven out of power over this scandal because the call girl, Christine Keeller, that Profumo was having an affair with was also having an affair with a Russian Embassy official. (And you question, Patrick, that Kennedy could be blackmailed?)
YES.
People who get blackmailed have singular or a few indescretions, not thousands of women as you claim.[/color]
"So Kennedy knew about all this, and Robert Kennedy, Jack's brother, in cahoots with J Edgar Hoover, the director of the FBI, they deported this Ellen Rometsch, sent her back to Germany so that she could not be around to talk to the press or testify before a Senate committee because there was some discussion on the possibility of having a Senate committee investigation.
J. Edgar Hoover and Robert Kennedy HATED each other.
How on earth can you allege that they were in cahoots.
In addition, Hoover would have NO say in a deportation, that's DOJ, INS, not the FBI.
In addition, Ellen was very popular with members of Congress, not just JFK.[/color]
"Now, Kennedy got wind of it and he told Ben Bradlee, this Washington Post editor, that if the Senate decided on some kind of investigation of sex activities at the White House, it was going to rebound against them because Kennedy said a lot of these senators were carrying on as well and the Kennedy White House, it was implied, was going to leak to the press all the information about the senators' transgressions."
How sweet. JFK screws around with a woman who may have been a spy. (Many others have no doubts on that count. e.g. George Stephanopolous, on CNN, called her an East German spy.)
George Stephanopolous wasn't even born when Kennedy was elected to the Presidency.[/color]
Kennedy's brother, who conveniently happens to be AG, immediately deports her. JFK then threatens blackmail to keep the affair secret.
Who did he blackmail and what were the terms of his demands ?[/color]
As Bradlee wrote in his book, "Conversations With Kennedy": ''There is something incredible about the picture of the President of the United States and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation looking at photographs of call girls over lunch.''
Don't try to convolute your presentation,
Stick to Ellen Rometsch. She wasn't a call girl.[/color]
Of course, it's not incredible, if Hoover is using that information to influence JFK.
What information ?[/color]
That is called blackmail.
No it's not.
Blackmail only exists if there's and extortion of threats, usually of public exposure or criminal prosecution.
Or, if a payment is extorted.
What payment did Hoover extort ?
Do you think that JFK was the only President that Hoover had information on ?
And, what was Hoover's payment, offered in exchange for his silence, or failure to prosecute ?[/color]
A little more from Dallek, on how Kennedy's thirst for women led him into dangerous waters...
"Kennedy would use the White House swimming pool for these sex parties, and there was a guy named Bobby Baker who was the secretary of the Senate and he would bring over call girls to the White House.
"But it wasn't just at the White House - Kennedy would go off on these trips and they would bring call girls to him."
It's also well documented that the Secret Service procured women for JFK.
Sex scandals can and have brought down national leaders.
Which ones ?[/color]
Knowing this, Kennedy still went way over the top.
Knowing what ?[/color]
He put his presidency in peril.
HOW ?[/color]
He then abused his power to cover it up.
HOW ?[/color]
Stephanopolous even called that technique the Rometsch Strategy.
You're confused and don't understand the meaning of "The Rometsch Strategy" It's not something JFK would implore.
Again, Stephanopolous wasn't even born when Kennedy was elected President. [/color]
This is getting long. So part two -- I'm sure everyone is waiting for it with bated breath -- to come.
-
Jim Nugent.
Let me see if I understand you correctly.
Over a time frame of several years JFK continuously took antibiotics for a urinary infection. Or, did he take antibiotics for a brief and routine 7-10 days until it cleared up ?
What was the frequency, timing and dosage of the medications you claim he was taking ?
I'm sure JFK's physicians were aware of any contrindications in the medications they were prescribing, hence your theory of a debilitating cocktail is far fetched.
Procaine, commonly known as Novacaine was routinely injected for dental and medical procedures. This is a disengenuous attempt on your part to demonize a drug that enjoyed widespread use and has few if any side affects.
The same can be said for salt tablets.
If you could provide the details relating to the frequency, timing and dosage of the drugs you allege he took, under the supervision of physicians, it would bring credibility to your argument. Absent the facts your argument holds no merit.
Let me see if I understand this. "According to the NYT's Biographers have pieced together details of other illnesses..."
Which biographers ?
Which Illnesses,
And with access to which specific medical records ?
I was under the impression that JFK's medical records were not available to the public, and that the only outside physician allowed access was Dr Lattimore (sp?) of ColPres, a pediatric urologist, now deceased I believe.
How do you know what drugs, if any Kennedy was taking prior to his election ?
You disengenuously state that he was taking 12 drugs at once, when you don't know what drugs he might have been taking, when he was taking them and in what dosages.
If you have any specific FACTS regarding this issue, especially the names of the drugs, the time frames that he took them in, the frequency in which he took them and the dosage of the drugs it would be helpful to your argument.
Absent the facts, you like everyone else, sees what you want to see in speculation.
-
Pat:
As to many of these revelations that've been coming out in recent times about JFK and more recently Nixon it seems to me the reasons for this is what's called "Declassification". In other words, after 30-35 years much of previously classified material by law can become "declassified" and available to the public for the first time. Some of these writers and reporters are obviously taking advantage of that fact.
JFK was a pretty long time ago although it may be hard for old guys like us to recognize that. Seems like some on here are intimating that JFK was hugely dangerous for the safety and well-being of this country. I say the country has muddled along just fine with him lasting as long as he did but what if Kennedy was taken out sooner? What if that day on North County Blvd I'd been looking left and hadn't noticed him right in front of me in time? At 50+mph I would've slammed directly into him and there'd have been little chance of him surviving or me either. Maybe that would've changed the world but the real tragedy would've been you never would've gotten to know me! And of course that means you would now know next to nothing about golf course architecture. ;)
-
TEPaul,
The advantage of being old, like me, or really old, like you, is that we lived through those times.
We were current with what was going on at the time and don't need to read snippets 40 years removed to know what was going on at the time.
I'm familiar with declassification.
JFK assembled a terrific team around him, a brain trust, as have other Presidents. The decisions that affected our country weren't made with a ouija board or between the sheets.
Given the choice of Marilyn Monroe or Monica lewinski, I'll take MM.
-
Guys should we change the subject to this discussion, to "JFK and bunch of BS"....Because I am gettin tired of reading about this stuff and other people on this site as well, if I had to take a guess.
Chris