As we approach our national political conventions, I find it interesting to
note that the assassination of Jack Kennedy marked the end of the "balanced
ticket" for national office. Since that event, the candidates for office
have made sure that the vice president candidate on their ticket has been at
least as much or more in support of their ideological platforms as they are.
This survival technique has insured that there is nothing to be gained by
their death. A conservative has made sure that the VP is as conservative, a
liberal that the VP is as liberal as they are.
This speaks volumes for the question of whether the JFK shoot was a
political event or the work of a "lone nut". Despite what politicians might
say about the assassination, they have acted as if it was a political act.
Nobody has felt secure enough to make it advantageous to their political
enemies if they are killed in office.
As the years go by, the events of the 60's stand out from before and after
in the quality and quantity of political killings, suppression and terror.
If one can judge the rightness of our efforts by the reactions of our
enemies, than we must have been awfully close to making significant change
in the world to be attacked so violently and totally. Peace, Mike Garrison,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 24 2000 - 05:05:22 CUT