Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : A CENTURY OF LIONS/THE 20TH CENTURY TOP 100 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (3134)	10/17/2001 11:29:29 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 3246

This just in from the NYDaily News quoting a Kennedy biographer: The writer, who is the bestselling author of "The Kennedy Women," reveals a letter from Kennedy's secret archive begging JFK to stop taking daily doses of Novocain and an amphetamine cocktail that caused "an exhilarated dream state." - From: News and Views \| Daily Dish \| Friday, October 12, 2001 No wonder Slick wanted to be JFK. And how'd the Kennedy loyalists let that out? Arthur Schlesinger Jr. must be livid. Little wonder Jackie had most of the records sealed for an unusually long period. And no wonder JFK is considered the "most over-rated president". At Amazon.com the writer, Leamer, marvels at the wonderful way the Kennedys stole the 1960 election: ....Although offering engaging and fast-moving accounts of such events as Joe Jr.'s death and Jack's rise in politics through means both fair and foul, Leamer consistently refrains from considering the ethical implications of his stories, or the evident shortcomings in the character of more than one Kennedy. He seems, for example, to step back in awe when considering the brilliance and audacity of the Kennedys' stealing Cook County and therefore the election during the 1960 presidential race. In the final analysis, Leamer is a fan, idealizing his subjects. The result is a good read, though not necessarily a balanced history.... amazon.com No one ever accused a Lib of being "balanced". I guess the best anyone can hope for is some small measure of truth - most Libs would have "considered the ethical implications" and spiked the vote-stealing and drug abuse. The reviewer seems more uncomfortable that such appears in print than in the actual acts.