RFK Jr.’s Racial Honesty—and Betrayal

[BaalChatzaf]

I'll add my support for Ed Hudgins's choice of article topics. I wasn't aware of the diary entries until I saw Ed's piece. I find them interesting because the Kennedy's are so worshiped by the left and especially be the media --- the whole Camelot thing. Of course, we all know about the breathtaking hypocrisy of those on the left, but, in my view, there can never be too many examples of such hypocrisy. Ordinary people that may not be interested discussing philosophy are nevertheless sensitive to examples of hypocrisy by politicians. And, any kernel of truth that makes them more skeptical of the promises and claims made by the political class is a good thing, in my view.

Darrell

You are not exaggerating a bit. In Massachusetts there are people who consider John F. Kennedy the second begotten Son of God. And Old Joe wasn't the father either. I remember on one of the talk shows this women called up many times and often referred to JFK as Our beloved martyred President. And so on....

I clearly remember the day JFK was shot dead. Grown up people at the office where I worked wept openly. They were not weeping that an elected president was murdered, the were weeping for the second Son of God the Father, JFK. And they blamed JFK's death on the hard right wingers in Dallas, "the City of Hate". They treated the right wing types as the Evil Jewish Money Lenders in The Temple.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

I swear that the Kennedy clan is cursed or something. They got some of the worst luck.

The bring it on themselves. Think of the Brothers Gracci in Roman History.

[caroljane]

No,

please! I am trying to forget!

Cornelia

[Selene]

I'll add my support for Ed Hudgins's choice of article topics. I wasn't aware of the diary entries until I saw Ed's piece. I find them interesting because the Kennedy's are so worshiped by the left and especially be the media --- the whole Camelot thing. Of course, we all know about the breathtaking hypocrisy of those on the left, but, in my view, there can never be too many examples of such hypocrisy. Ordinary people that may not be interested discussing philosophy are nevertheless sensitive to examples of hypocrisy by politicians. And, any kernel of truth that makes them more skeptical of the promises and claims made by the political class is a good thing, in my view.

Darrell

I swear that the Kennedy clan is cursed or something. They got some of the worst luck.

Luck!?

Sorry, not buying that spin.

[caroljane]

Oh luck is very real. Especially the luck of the Irish, which Joe Kennedy bequeathed to his offspring in toxic bursts.

There was a novel by Edwin O'Connor, forget the name. An minor character practically dances with spite, shouting, "I hope it rains like the hammers of hell on you (Joe Kennedy). all over you and your damned garden party!"

And it did.

[Darrell Hougen]

Oh luck is very real. Especially the luck of the Irish, which Joe Kennedy bequeathed to his offspring in toxic bursts.

There was a novel by Edwin O'Connor, forget the name. An minor character practically dances with spite, shouting, "I hope it rains like the hammers of hell on you (Joe Kennedy). all over you and your damned garden party!"

And it did.

(!) OMG! Not sure what to say about that.

Darrell

[Darrell Hougen]

I'll add my support for Ed Hudgins's choice of article topics. I wasn't aware of the diary entries until I saw Ed's piece. I find them interesting because the Kennedy's are so worshiped by the left and especially be the media --- the whole Camelot thing. Of course, we all know about the breathtaking hypocrisy of those on the left, but, in my view, there can never be too many examples of such hypocrisy. Ordinary people that may not be interested discussing philosophy are nevertheless sensitive to examples of hypocrisy by politicians. And, any kernel of truth that makes them more skeptical of the promises and claims made by the political class is a good thing, in my view.

Darrell

You are not exaggerating a bit. In Massachusetts there are people who consider John F. Kennedy the second begotten Son of God. And Old Joe wasn't the father either. I remember on one of the talk shows this women called up many times and often referred to JFK as Our beloved martyred President. And so on....

I clearly remember the day JFK was shot dead. Grown up people at the office where I worked wept openly. They were not weeping that an elected president was murdered, the were weeping for the second Son of God the Father, JFK. And they blamed JFK's death on the hard right wingers in Dallas, "the City of Hate". They treated the right wing types as the Evil Jewish Money Lenders in The Temple.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ironic, then, that his killer was a Communist. RFK was also killed by a member of a group often favored by the left, a Palestinian who hated Israel.

Darrell

[Selene]

Ironic, then, that his killer was a Communist. RFK was also killed by a member of a group often favored by the left, a Palestinian who hated Israel.

Really?

You have proof of these assassinations?

[Darrell Hougen]

Ironic, then, that his killer was a Communist. RFK was also killed by a member of a group often favored by the left, a Palestinian who hated Israel.

Really?

You have proof of these assassinations?

Oh no! You're not going to hit me some sort of conspiracy theory, are you?

Darrell

[PDS]

Oh luck is very real. Especially the luck of the Irish, which Joe Kennedy bequeathed to his offspring in toxic bursts.

There was a novel by Edwin O'Connor, forget the name. An minor character practically dances with spite, shouting, "I hope it rains like the hammers of hell on you (Joe Kennedy). all over you and your damned garden party!"

And it did.

You asked for it, sister.

[caroljane]

Some might call it coincidence ...some might call it reworking a thesis into a self-published book ...some might go and cash in her $5 lotto win...

best lol of the day, PDS

[Samson Corwell]

I'll add my support for Ed Hudgins's choice of article topics. I wasn't aware of the diary entries until I saw Ed's piece. I find them interesting because the Kennedy's are so worshiped by the left and especially be the media --- the whole Camelot thing. Of course, we all know about the breathtaking hypocrisy of those on the left, but, in my view, there can never be too many examples of such hypocrisy. Ordinary people that may not be interested discussing philosophy are nevertheless sensitive to examples of hypocrisy by politicians. And, any kernel of truth that makes them more skeptical of the promises and claims made by the political class is a good thing, in my view.

Darrell

I swear that the Kennedy clan is cursed or something. They got some of the worst luck.

Luck!?

Sorry, not buying that spin.

Tis just a common expression. I don't think people who speak of luck give much thought to whether or not it is 'real'.

[caroljane]

I can't resist adding further to #35, I wonder if Dr Mrs Dr D addresses "luck as a component in career" to any extent. Her own career choices, of course, have been based on strict ethical and moral choices, leading her to shun the traditional path of the philosopher which leads them to teach philosophy at university level, think and write about philosophy while also eating regularly. She has also resisted the temptation to join the think-tanks of her chosen philosophy and thus gain money or cred through association with them.

Guessed wrong, twice, second-guessed self, wrong. Luck of the draw.

[caroljane]

I'll add my support for Ed Hudgins's choice of article topics. I wasn't aware of the diary entries until I saw Ed's piece. I find them interesting because the Kennedy's are so worshiped by the left and especially be the media --- the whole Camelot thing. Of course, we all know about the breathtaking hypocrisy of those on the left, but, in my view, there can never be too many examples of such hypocrisy. Ordinary people that may not be interested discussing philosophy are nevertheless sensitive to examples of hypocrisy by politicians. And, any kernel of truth that makes them more skeptical of the promises and claims made by the political class is a good thing, in my view.

Darrell

I agree that we're ribbing Ed with just a bit too much elbow. His article definitely has value. I think it's just an issue of timing. It should have been saved for a time when the race hustlers were in the act of hustling on the national stage again. Right now the focus should be Syria and other spotlight issues.

Just have to apply a little, gentle more bit of elbow though. It still bothers me that Ed has suggested that by discussing his article based on the New York Post story, which he considers major, we are "endorsing" it. The Post, really? Can we infer then that by repeating its choice of story, TAS is endorsing Rupert Murdoch and his well-known editorial policies, such as "don't criticize China because most of my money is tied up there"?

[Ed Hudgins]

A few points:

First, I choose the topics I about which I blog, not TAS. If you fine them interesting, great. If not, save your reading for something else.

Second, I would think I don't have to argue that black communities are in atrocious shape and that this has been, for decades, one of the major problems in our country; 400,000 murdered black, mostly by other blacks, since King's speech is kind of a giveaway. Or spend some time in the slums of any major urban area: Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, LA, you name it. If this issue doesn't interest you, fine. But don't complain about those of us who understand the depth of this problem.

Third, I'm not suggesting that those who object to my commenting on RFK Jr.'s diary entries are endorsing or not endorsing anything. I'm saying that their arguments for me ignoring the diary story--which is all over the media and web now--are too silly for me to fathom. I'll let them waste their time twisting their brains over this. Meanwhile, I'm off to finish another piece that I personally think is of interest. When I post it, read it or not. Your choice!

[caroljane]

Your articles usually are signed with your credentials, though, which .presupposes they are approved by TAS. Do you mean that you are an independent commentator, like a syndicated columnist?

[caroljane]

I have looked at the coverage and there is indeed a lot on the Net, .surprisingly little from the evil liberal MSM, except as commentary, not news. The National Enquirer, rightly miffed at being scooped, or more probably outbid, on the document, are nevertheless enjoying the windfall

[PDS]

A few points:

First, I choose the topics I about which I blog, not TAS. If you fine them interesting, great. If not, save your reading for something else.

Second, I would think I don't have to argue that black communities are in atrocious shape and that this has been, for decades, one of the major problems in our country; 400,000 murdered black, mostly by other blacks, since King's speech is kind of a giveaway. Or spend some time in the slums of any major urban area: Baltimore, Detroit, St. Louis, LA, you name it. If this issue doesn't interest you, fine. But don't complain about those of us who understand the depth of this problem.

Third, I'm not suggesting that those who object to my commenting on RFK Jr.'s diary entries are endorsing or not endorsing anything. I'm saying that their arguments for me ignoring the diary story--which is all over the media and web now--are too silly for me to fathom. I'll let them waste their time twisting their brains over this. Meanwhile, I'm off to finish another piece that I personally think is of interest. When I post it, read it or not. Your choice!

Ed:

I, for one, do not dispute any of your points above. And I generally find your essays worthwhile, in the big scheme of things.

But here is the thing: you are posting here voluntarily, and you are well aware that you are posting on a site that allows for comments. Generally speaking, my experience is that the regular commentariat on this site do so in good faith, and, generally without resort to the type of ad hominem mode so common in internet forums. If you simply want backslapping, consensus and attaboys, you have come to the wrong place. If, however, you do not receive the praise you had hoped for at the time of posting, isn't that the price of admission for putting yourself out there, so to speak?

You have never addressed the privacy issue several of us have raised, either substantively, or on the basis of nuances related to an Objectivist view of what constitutes "fair game" for public discussion. As a Big Dog/Senior Scholar in the Objectivist community, this would be a very interesting question to chew on, and for you to engage on. Engaging on this issue, rather than waving your hand at us and saying "go read something else if you don't like it", does not seem to fit with the usual method of debate established around here. And frankly, it is a lousy way to respond to mild critiques--Big Dog or not.

I am going to hazard an educated guess here: I don't think you ever gave much thought of the "taste" factor some of us have raised before posting the essay, and you were sort of caught with your pants down on that issue. The virtue of honesty being what is is, there would have been nothing wrong with you simply admitting this and then saying that the pros of addressing the diaries still outweigh the cons of not doing so. That seems to be your view. Is it not?

That would be an honest discussion, worthy of this forum. I look forward to such discussions with you in the future.

[caroljane]

Side thought, if someone had stolen and sold Rand's private journals for publication, what would she have done?

[PDS]

Daunce: as you have probably surmised, part of the reason for my original post and concomitant queasiness about private diaries being bandied about on an Objectivist website relates precisely to the way Ayn Rand's diaries have been used to smear her as something she is not.

Here is one example of an excerpt--and heavy-handed extrapolation--from her diaries, which caused one commentator to wet his pants, clutch his pearls, and claim Rand was "an apologist for wickedness."

Now, with that being said, I do think Ed underlying point is 100% right: i.e., RFK Jr. is indeed a ridiculous hypocrite on the subject of race and his diaries do indeed appear to prove him thus. The meta-question here is whether a senior scholar of Objectivism such as Ed doesn't run himself into a goose and gander problem by making private diaries "fair game" for discussions of hypocrisy.

[caroljane]

Yes, and how is pointing out hypocrisy in ideological opponents useful? Politics practically demands a suppression of some portion of one's complete idea package -- look at the recent rapprochement of Objectivists and libertarians, |And when Rand was a political activist, she supported Wendell Willkie who although an internationalist, hypocritically reached out to the isolationists - not that it did him any good,

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Yes, and how is pointing out hypocrisy in ideological opponents useful?

Carol,

Come on. It discredits them.

That's kind of obvious, no?

Progressives do it all the time. I don't recall your protest about the uselessness of pointing out hypocrisy when the target was, say, Rush Limbaugh.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As to RFK's privacy woes, that's a risk when you decide to lead a public life.

I mean, you could even be President of the United States, be serviced with oral sex by a beautiful young lady in private backstage somewhere, then someone tells on you and the media turns it into the shot heard around the world.

As to Ed talking about this episode here on OL, yes, it's a bit gossipy. But since when is gossip prohibited?

Is there any great deep philosophical meaning to be had in this issue? Nope. Just your run of the mill hypocrisy of someone who likes to wag the finger at others in public, but is corrupt to the core in private. Lots of those in politics.

But is it fun to talk about?

Yup.

It's the thrill of the hunt.

(That's a philosophical statement with an actual meaning if you look at it right. I laugh, but I'm serious.)

Michael

[PDS]

MSK, as in: checking your opponent's premises for him, even when he won't do it himself...?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

David,

Sure. That's one. Not THE one, but lets stay with it a minute.

For example, Progressives and liberals often wax poetic about THE CHIIIIIIIIILDRUN.

On and on they go.

Not just any children, either.

AAAAAAAAWWWWWLLLLLLLLL CHIIIIIIIIILDRUN.

Africa.

The Middle East.

South and Central America.

Wherever those lovely little suckers are to be found the earth over.

All children are precious.

Global community.

Save the planet for them.

We are custodians of their future.

The children are...

Er...

We interrupt this program to bring you an important public announcement...

... when you disagree with one of those distinguished personages and put your disagreement into action.

Check this out.

Democratic Official Allan Brauer Wishes Death on Ted Cruz Aide’s Children

Or

Dem. Official to Obamacare Foe: 'May Your Children All Die from Debilitating, Painful and Incurable Diseases'

Niiiice...

Should we ignore the hypocrisy?

After all, according to these Progressive and/or liberal luminaries:

Those CHIIIIIIIIILDRUN don't count.

Those CHIIIIIIIIILDRUN are not precious.

Those CHIIIIIIIIILDRUN need to die.

How's them apples?

If it looks like hypocrisy, quacks like hypocrisy and acts like hypocrisy, what is it?

Moral outrage of the noble soul?

I say let's discuss it.

Michael