Trust an Irishman to sail from Long Island all the way to Scotland when he could have bought Scotch whiskey by the metic buttload in Canada.
Johnny Torrio, Deanie O’Banion, “Bugs” Moran, Alphonse Capone, Joe Kennedy, Louis Buchalter, Frank Nitti…which of these men went to Harvard?
Bush may not have participated in the direct actions, but the Rove-directed disenfranchising of thousands of Florida voters based on unchecked “criminal” lists probably did have a direct bearing on that election. Bush may not have directly outed Ms. Plame, but his direct reports did. Bush clearly did “get us into” Iraq, even considering Congressional failures. The Bush claims are hyperbole; the Kennedy claims are false.
I don’t know.
-FrL-
It was Papa Joe. I don’t think the rest of those guys even finished grammar school.
WTF? What does matriculation from Hahvahd have to do with whether someone is in the mafia, or not? Should I also assume that Billy Bulger must be innocent of organized crime connections because he’s a BC grad?
Mamet?
Sounds like a Muslim. I’m just saying.
The intention is to underline the class distinctions prevalent at the time, the difference, for instance, between “lace curtain” Irish and “bog” Irish. Frankly, I thought that too obvious to clarify further.
Did Joe buy and sell illegally imported liquor? Likely. Does this make him a “bootlegger”? I suppose, if you like. But a gangster? Please.
The alternative scenario, which has no more proven basis in fact than the “gangster” scenario, is that Joe exploited his liquor connections (his father owning saloons and being a Democratic ward boss) to buy fancy liquor for his well-heeled friends and business acquaintances. No doubt this lent him a somwhat raffish reputation, but that is light years from being a “gangster”. Where were his gunsels and “torpedoes”? Who did he have “rubbed out”?
Joe the K was a ruthless businessman and a cold mofo, no doubt. But a “gangster”? Nah.
The emphasis upon lace curtain Irish vs. bog Irish would have been more prevalent had you chosen a group of gangsters that were all Irish, instead of one that included some that were famously Italian, Sicilian, or Jewish.
And while I’m not one to deny the class differences you’re alluding to, I’m not so sure that they’re as clear-cut as you want to present them as being, esp. when dealing with gangsters. I chose Billy Bulger for my counter-example for a reason, after all.
Granted, I suppose, but if you want to prove “Joe the K.” was a gangster, you need to provide a bit more substance than the rather thin gruel of inference and innuendo offered thus far.
elucidator, I couldn’t make a valid argument about Joe Kennedy if my life depended upon it. I accept that he was personally unpleasant, and probably a bootlegger, but that’s all I’m certain about with him, myself. I was just speaking up because I did recognize your argument seemed to be based on class, I just reject that kind of thinking because one can always find some example of shittiness in any class you care to name.
Esp. among Alumi of prestigious universities.
Why would anyone read the article? It’s awfully long.
Mamet’s a hack- stilted cornball dialogue mistaken for the way “real people talk” by people who have no idea how real people talk.
I don’t know why people keep believing this lie. I tend to see it in Democrats who are obsessive about defending JFK’s legacy. Who decided to implement the Bay of Pigs? Kennedy, period. Decisions like that don’t get “carried over” like they are on autopilot, the buck stops with one man on such things–that’s something a President has to take responsibility for–FWIW I’ve never heard evidence that Kennedy considered the Bay of Pigs to be Ike’s fault, my impression was Kennedy realized he fucked up.
On top of that, the original plan that was created under Ike was materially different from the way it went down under Kennedy, one of the big criticisms Kennedy deserves for the whole Bay of Pigs fiasco is that the people under him changed the original operation pretty significantly which made the overall operation much more likely to fail.
It’s actually also worth noting that Joe Kennedy became a millionaire primarily through legitimate business investments. He made a ton of money on the stock market in ways that would become illegal, but to my knowledge they weren’t illegal at the time. He made money in Hollywood, banking, et cetera.
I think the primary evidence to support the idea that he made money through the illegal importing of liquor is the fact that one of the many companies Joe Kennedy owned in his life was involved in importing goods and it immediately started openly importing gin and vodka once prohibition ended–it’s quite likely it was doing just that before prohibition ended as well.
I had heard that Kennedy decided not to give the invaders any air support. Is that what you meant?
A charismatic but inexperienced junior Senator makes it to the White House, announcing that the “torch has been passed to a new generation”. Then he botches one of the first uses of the military.
Gee, I wonder if there will ever be another candidate who might be subject to the same failing?
Regards,
Shodan
What a splendid military adventure we missed out on, eh, Shodan. More’s the pity.
Alternative scenario, gleaned from a lot of reading…
Kennedy was inexperienced, which shows not so much in his decision to hedge his bets, but that he was conned into believing this pig could fly in the first place. His inherited advisors assured him that the Cuban people groaned under the brutal regime etc. etc. And that they would rise up to overthrow the brutal etc. etc., strew roses in our path, greet us as liberators…you’re right, it does sound familiar, just not the way you mean.
Kennedy quite reasonably asked that if this were so, why was so much massive firepower needed, if we were simply giving a nudge to a corrupt and hated regime ready to topple like a house of cards? If we are going to protect the myth of a popular uprising, how do we explain the presence of American airplanes? Did the exiled Cubans pick them up at B-29s 'R Us?
Everything in the plan depended on a false assumption: that they Bay of Pigs half-assed “invasion” would result in a popular uprising and a regime change, no other result was acceptable. Certainly not a massive American invasion to crush the freedom loving etc. Try to imagine the political hay the Soviets could have made from Cuban patriots flinging themselves into one-sided combat against the running dog jackals of the etc. etc. Try to picture the worlds reaction to brave Cuban patriots defending their soil from the awesome military might of the USA.
And dying. At the hands of the Americans.
Kennedy prevented a bad decision from become a catastrophic one. No good outcome is possible if the action is predicated on a lie. And those who will not learn from history make the rest of us repeat it.
You mean like a charismatic, but inexperienced, one term governor?
another Reagan reference?
Actually, the only recent President this could refer to is Carter – although "charismatic’ would be generous.