News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #50 on: November 10, 2005, 06:59:16 AM »
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.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #51 on: November 10, 2005, 02:21:26 PM »
Tom,

Do you think that was an invitation?



Oh yeah, it looks like he probably hit a hook!

ForkaB

Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #52 on: November 10, 2005, 02:36:36 PM »
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......????"

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #53 on: November 10, 2005, 04:28:00 PM »
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. :)
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

TEPaul

Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #54 on: November 10, 2005, 06:49:42 PM »
"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.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2005, 07:11:04 PM by TEPaul »

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #55 on: November 10, 2005, 09:00:53 PM »
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"?
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

TEPaul

Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #56 on: November 10, 2005, 09:34:00 PM »
Dan Kellytm;

It's not that tough---Sah-bon-ik

Doug Siebert

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #57 on: November 11, 2005, 12:30:20 AM »
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
« Last Edit: November 11, 2005, 12:31:56 AM by Doug Siebert »
My hovercraft is full of eels.

Jim Nugent

Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #58 on: November 11, 2005, 02:14:13 AM »
"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.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2005, 02:15:03 AM by Jim Nugent »

TEPaul

Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #59 on: November 11, 2005, 07:49:25 AM »
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.

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #60 on: November 11, 2005, 09:12:53 AM »

...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. ;)
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Jim Nugent

Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #61 on: November 11, 2005, 10:06:07 AM »
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.  

Patrick_Mucci

Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #62 on: November 11, 2005, 11:38:51 AM »

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.

Mike_Cirba

Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #63 on: November 11, 2005, 01:59:15 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2005, 02:02:58 PM by Mike Cirba »

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #64 on: November 11, 2005, 05:39:08 PM »
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
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #65 on: November 11, 2005, 05:58:22 PM »
 :-X :-X :-X :-X

Have a nice weekend everyone.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #66 on: November 11, 2005, 06:16:50 PM »
:-X :-X :-X :-X

Have a nice weekend everyone.

George --

I, for one, am very proud of you.

Have a great weekend.

Dan
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

TEPaul

Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #67 on: November 11, 2005, 06:32:38 PM »
"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??  ;)  

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #68 on: November 11, 2005, 06:39:42 PM »
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
New plays planned for 2024: Fraserburgh, Turnberry, Isle of Harris, Benbecula, Askernish, Traigh, St Medan, Hankley Common, Ashridge, Gog Magog Old & Cruden Bay St Olaf

PThomas

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #69 on: November 11, 2005, 06:45:21 PM »
with a major babe like Jackie I wonder why JFK had to look elsewhere ???
197 played, only 3 to go!!

Sean Leary

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #70 on: November 11, 2005, 06:54:56 PM »
Paul

Show me the hottest girl on the planet and I'll show you a guy who is tired of boinking her... ;D

Patrick_Mucci

Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #71 on: November 11, 2005, 07:16:30 PM »
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]

« Last Edit: November 11, 2005, 07:19:34 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Jim Nugent

Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #72 on: November 12, 2005, 07:06:33 AM »

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.  

TEPaul

Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #73 on: November 12, 2005, 08:25:44 AM »
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.  ;)
« Last Edit: November 12, 2005, 08:28:44 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:GD article on Sebonac
« Reply #74 on: November 12, 2005, 09:06:44 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2005, 09:24:29 AM by TEPaul »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back