The Bug wrote a new book.
It is ginormous.
The LA Times likes it.
No mention of his likely perjury at the TLB Trial. And it isn't hard to find in their own paper.
No mention of stalking the milkman because he might have screwed your wife.
And of course no mention of beating his mistress because she didn't have the abortion he paid for.
If what the Bug said at trial is a fabrication designed to make Manson a menace and the Bug a hero...if he is obviously dislocated in many ways in the brain, vis a vis stalking milkmen etc...if he committed perjury during a capital crime (which carries the death sentence) why does anyone think I am going to believe his 1000 page book?
32 comments:
I heard his next book is going to prove that the missing minutes on the Nixon tape contained nothing more than Nixon and Kissinger sitting around casually discussing different recipes for homemade cookies. Oatmeal chocolate chip, I think.
Priceless. I heard the BUG prefers Snickerdoodles. LOL.
Interesting....reading the past blog articles make apparent that the outcomes of the milkman case and the abortion story have never come to light...at least on this blog. Were they completely discredited? If not, how would Bugliosi have any credibility at all?
And see, that is why the BUG flipped his wig (or should I say eyebrow), he wanted milk with his cookies but due to his stalking, he was banned from dairy aisles across America.
Awesome Col.
I think what you really mean, Scramblehead, and what Col Scott means, when you (both) say You are NOT entitled to your opinion...you are entitled to your INFORMED opinion., is that ‘you are not entitled to your opinion unless it coincides with my opinion’.
Sycophant Scramblehead also says:
you have NO business discussing JFK unless you are INFORMED (i.e., you pay attention to the available information).
I think you have chosen your nick wisely, addlepate Leaving aside the obvious retort that I have every right to discuss whatever I want, with whomever I want and in whatever terms I want, I invite you to consider that Information is the raw stuff of understanding, and that without interpretation it is of limited value (remember the WMD issue?).
Intelligence agencies generally have no shortage of information. They need, however, to evaluate it, determine what is potentially useful and then interpret the information. It is the interpretation of information that leads to decision and action. And as we know, there will be conflicting interpretations deriving from the same source data. Both will be ‘informed’ by the same information – it will be the interpretation that differs.
There is no shortage of wacky theories about the assassination of JFK, or the Manson murders, or the builders of the pyramids or Stonehenge. But theories are (or should be) evaluated in terms of their explanatory adequacy. As William of Occam (quoted by Bertrand Russell) says “one should always opt for an explanation in terms of the fewest possible number of causes, factors, or variables”.
The simple explanation is that Oswald killed Kennedy and that he acted alone. You don’t have to believe it, but Bugliosi apparently does and has written a book to that effect. Whether Bugliosi is guilty of lechery, perfidy, assault, perjury or whatever in no way invalidates the content of his book on Kennedy and it is fatuous to suggest otherwise. You don’t agree – OK. By that token, Bugliosi doesn’t agree with you either. Lots of people don’t agree with each other, but they respect each others’ opinions and get on with their lives.
But my real distaste at your mail – and the reason I queried it - was the allusion to a woman being ‘decent looking’. Whatever you wanted that to mean can only be sexist and offensive and I think an apology to all women is in order.
Jem
As to who built the pyramids? If I remember my studies of the great Steven Wright I'm pretty sure it was a guy named Eddie...
As for Bugliosi: who better to write a book debunking the greatest conspiracy related mystery of our time than someone who succeeded in convincing a jury that at least 7 people were murdered in Los Angeles because of the Book of Revelation and some song those four mop topped Lads from Liverpool wrote? Point that out to the LA Times....
Wrong, Jem, you have NO business discussing JFK (or any case) unless you are informed and know what you are talking about.
Get off your Woman kick. I don't owe anyone anything.
Well, Scramblehead, your mind is more confused than I feared. Perhaps I should have written in words of one syllable?
I have no energy to argue with you, and no real interest in your views. Furthermore, I have no idea whether you owe me or anyone else anything, and care even less. It does sound a rather insecure, macho standpoint, though.
I guess the main point here is that I live in a world where respect for others is valued. You clearly don't. Fair enough; you don't have to live in my world, and I don't have to live in yours.
But this blog is a sort of public forum. It has been pleasant and civilised lately, and we've all enjoyed it. I hope you will help us to keep it that way.
Jem
Okay from what I can gather, this book is the Oswald acted alone theory, just like Gerald Posner's Case Closed but only more in depth. But didn't the House Select Committee in Assasinations already find that there was a conspiracy back in like 1977?
Jempud... Of course you can discuss JFK or Manson! I suppose "being informed" means, "knowing some facts". It is clear that you do know some facts and you are clearly well-equipped to analyse them.
I do however take issue with you when you quote Russell. I believe Russell was talking about logic, mathematics and science. I don't think this reductionist approach (it is an aesthetic) is applicable in either JFK, Manson or indeed any investigation of complex human affairs.
It would be nice if there were a neat and tidy answer to the Manson case. I suspect that there isn't one.
Skyhook
I agree with you that Occam's Razor is more useful in philosophy than when applied to conspiracy theory.
And I was reacting more to the JFK case - I feel that the amount of 'verifiable data' in the JFK case is probably greater than in Manson-related cases, and was suggesting tht all things being equal the simplest explanation is often the best.
But thank you for your support in allowing me the gifts of discussion and analysis!
Who now will join me in my support for the right to respect for women? Or does Addlepate speak for you all?
Jem
Jempud said...
Who now will join me in my support for the right to respect for women?
Women and men deserve respect... of course.
I wasn't offended by Scamblehead's remark about Bugliosi's wife. I didn't tho' understand its relevance.
catscradle77 said... But didn't the House Select Committee in Assasinations already find that there was a conspiracy back in like 1977?
CAT - Thank you! Yes, that is a fact. Funny how people still argue the lone gunman theory AS IF it's an actual debate. Uninformed people argue that point being totally unaware that the Government ADMITTED (HSCA)that there was, at the very least, a second gunman.
JEM - don't tell me what to do. You don't even know who Howard Hunt is. So go sit in the corner and cry to yourself.
I am not even sure what Jem is losing her shit over. Did I ever say that someone was good looking?
And how is Jem responding to scramble 3 hours before his comment?
So odd!
Anyways...
Jem- No onw has a RIGHT To their opinion. This is not in any constitution ever written in any world on earth.
I am not entitled to an opinion on Pakistan because I don't know shit about the place. I can talk all I want, no one will stop me, but expressing an opinion on Pakistan will make me a moron.
Too many Americans feel they can say "well I am entitled to my opinion" as a defense to a moronic comment. No, you aren't, and they remain a moron.
You seem terrific. Agree or disagree with us. Just do so knowledgably and factually.
Yes, Bug's life IS important. Suppose OJ wrote a book saying that Oswald did it. He is a murderer and a liar- this would color every word in his book. He could not be believed. I believe Bug is a perjuror, a woman beater and a psycho. This means I cannot believe most of his research on Oswald because he is a liar.
Follow?
Pristash said...
As to who built the pyramids? If I remember my studies of the great Steven Wright I'm pretty sure it was a guy named Eddie...
>>>I think you are 100% correct. Hey Cat, can I have a cookie?
Scramblehead dice...
JEM - don't tell me what to do. You don't even know who Howard Hunt is. So go sit in the corner and cry to yourself.
I wouldn’t dream of telling you what to do. I asked for respect. You have chosen not to show it. End of chapter.
But I am fascinated by your omniscience. So you know what I know and don’t know? That being the case, you will know what I think about you, and I don’t need to say it here. And you’ll know I’m not sitting in the corner crying, either.
Col dice
I am not even sure what Jem is losing her shit over. Did I ever say that someone was good looking?
No Col, you have said nothing other than your usual ebullient swagger, which endears you to most on the blog. Not especially to me, but hey, horses for courses. For me you have other virtues – you put up some brilliant content (and rather too much opinionated dross). Also (unlike most) you address the points I make, which is always refreshing.
Beyond that, I admire the working of your fine mind which I occasionally glimpse. And you are intelligent enough to realise that my lack of sycophancy is in itself a form of flattery …
[…] how is Jem responding to scramble 3 hours before his comment?
Time zone thingie – with most browsers you as a user can choose to see posts with the time they were posted displayed as in the country of posting or the country of reception. I was posting from the UK on that post, hence the disparity.
So odd!
dunno about your life, but mine is full of oddities
No onw (sic) has a RIGHT To their opinion. This is not in any constitution ever written in any world on earth.
I’m disappointed in you, Col. I would have thought even a disbarred lawyer would be familiar with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. Didn’t you read that in law school? Try reading articles 2 and 19.
You seem terrific. Agree or disagree with us. Just do so knowledgably and factually.
I am not in the habit of expressing opinions on things I know nothing about. And of course I am happy to agree or disagree with the opinions of others. For example, …
Yes, Bug's life IS important. Suppose OJ wrote a book saying that Oswald did it. He is a murderer and a liar- this would color every word in his book. He could not be believed. I believe Bug is a perjuror, a woman beater and a psycho. This means I cannot believe most of his research on Oswald because he is a liar.
… I disagree with your reasoning here. By analogy, would you disagree with the research of a world renowned mathematician or physicist (choose your own) because s/he was a ‘perjuror, a woman beater and a psycho’. Is Hitler a worse painter or Manson a worse musician because of the other stuff they were involved with?
But feel free to disagree with me. You have always shown me respect (in your fashion), when disagreeing, and that to me is good blogging and good camaraderie.
Jem
Jem
I show you respect because you have a brain and use it.
And to answer your direct question, your analogy is flawed. Hitler's painting is what it is- but I am unable to judge it outside the context of his especially heinous life.
A mathematician usually regurgitates facts. But yes, if a mathematician claimed to have solved some major puzzle AND I knew he had raped a 15 year old girl, that WOULD color completely his research.
As for the Universal Declaration, I believe the US outlawed it the day it was drafted.
Col
Up early or up late?
your analogy is flawed. Hitler's painting is what it is- but I am unable to judge it outside the context of his especially heinous life. A mathematician usually regurgitates facts. But yes, if a mathematician claimed to have solved some major puzzle AND I knew he had raped a 15 year old girl, that WOULD color completely his research.
OK - we agree to disagree on this. No need to take it further.
As for the Universal Declaration, I believe the US outlawed it the day it was drafted.
I’m not a US citizen nor a lawyer, so presumably shouldn’t speak ! However, I know how to consult a reference book.
I don’t know when it was drafted – presumably over time? But it was proclaimed on 10 December 1948. The previous day Eleanor Roosevelt said: "Taken as a whole, the Delegation of the United States believes that this a good document – even a great document – and we propose to give it our full support. [...] This Universal Declaration of Human Rights may well become the international Magna Carta of all men everywhere." [Eleanor Roosevelt, 9 December 1948].
At voting the US did not abstain or vote against (I’m presuming they participated in the voting?). And in my (brief) search I found no reference to the official ‘outlawing’ of it. What individual citizens think is of course another matter, and I remember Jeanne Kirkpatrick railing against it on more than one occasion. Maybe you can show me where it was 'outlawed', for my education?
Incidentally, for what it’s worth, I’m not a one hundred per cent convinced of the DHR myself – I see problems when the rights of one impinge on the rights of another (viz. the rights of the unborn child vs. the rights of a woman to choose whether to have an abortion). I only mentioned it as an example of somewhere where the right to hold an opinion was enshrined. But let’s not go there again.
Peace
Jem
Sorry, forgot to source the Roosevelt quote: see James, Michael. "Soviet Rights Hit by Mrs. Roosevelt." New York Times 29 Sept. 1948: A4. ABI/Inform Global. ProQuest. Indiana University, Bloomington. As I spend all day teaching my students to do this I guess I should set a good example.
And of course as a woman I should be proud that Eleanor Roosevelt served as the first chairperson of the UN Human Rights Commission. But I’m not. I don’t give a toss about women getting positions unless they deserve them. But I do care about women getting respect, or perhaps even more about women being disrespected because they are women.
Peace
Jem
Jem, you have way too much time on your hands. And you might look into codependency therapy.
BUG is a willing servant (whore) to the so-called establishment.
The Col. is a brilliant & hilarious rebel without a pause.
And I am God.
Seriously Jem, how could you possibly be as consumed by this as you make yourself appear to be?
Lighten up. Have a cookie.
Dok said...
Pristash said...
As to who built the pyramids? If I remember my studies of the great Steven Wright I'm pretty sure it was a guy named Eddie...
>>>I think you are 100% correct. Hey Cat, can I have a cookie?
--I baked a huge heart shaped love cookie for all. It is a surprise cookie,like the cake on the Little Rascals, and yes my oven did the "weep-wah" like the Rascals oven did. Just beware, I added among other things, a Lyndon LaRouche pamphlet. I have been told that it tastes of propaganda, and leaves a foul taste in ones mouth.
Vote for RON PAUL '08
Any relation to Ru? Cuz then he has my vote.
But seriously, thanks for the heads up Scramblehead, and checking him out.
Hey, I am computer retarded (among other points of retardation in my being), what browser does let one do that? It would be cool to see the time zone thing....
Vote Barack Obama 08 (LOL lets flip the script from the Jem tirade).
Cat can you send me an email so I can talk to you in private. Oh, thanks for the cookie loaded with progaganda, I felt there was a dash of mail fraud mixed in there.
Doktor-
Send one to both your and Wendy's addy. Hit me back soon please.
Cats
And Dok, there apparently is alot of mail fraud and assorted hijinks to be found in said cookie.
Some portions of it, are more tasty than others.
But my baking methods are pure, though the ingredients may not be.
Tomorrow, in the NYTimes Sunday Book Review, will appear a review of Bugliosi's book and another review of BROTHERS, about RFK and JFK. The NYTimes likes Bugliosi's book too....sort of
Pristash --
is it online or do you need to get the paper itself?
For everybody to read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/books/review/Burrough-t.html?ref=review
ColScott said...
"If what the Bug said at trial is a fabrication designed to make Manson a menace and the Bug a hero...if he is obviously dislocated in many ways in the brain, vis a vis stalking milkmen etc...if he committed perjury during a capital crime (which carries the death sentence)....."
That's a lot of "ifs" and no "actuals."
Post a Comment