The American Spectator

br> — James R. Stevenson br> San Diego, California /p>

Wlady, Wlady, Wlady… Your missive of 22 November 2003 about JFK is sentimental drivel, useful not in the least, except, perhaps, to illustrate how an adolescent might have his immature world-view misshapen and distorted by some shocking event.

Based on your comments, I expect we agree JFK’s substantive contributions were minimal. In reality, I would say the best thing he did was NOT having blundered into a nuclear war, which he might just as easily have done, and which, I acknowledge, was a good thing. But, bestowing upon him a status as most princely and stylish of presidents ascribes more to ersatz legend than in any way deserved.

JFK was the son of a bootlegger. Joseph Kennedy purchased his family’s moneyed trappings, pseudo-respectability and political power using the proceeds from his days as a mobster. Yet, this appears of no import to a bedazzled and gullible public accepting of what sycophants in the media project.

Beyond this, the evidence is shockingly sparse that JFK took many things in his life very seriously (except drugs and sex). To the contrary, it appears he fecklessly used his inherited wealth and position to merely play at real life.

Stylish? I don’t think. False, pretentious, and gilded? Yep, that’s what I think.

p>So, Wlady, come on, please. You of all people should avoid aiding and abetting the undeservedly admired and, in truth, hollow charade that was JFK and his so-called Camelot. It was constructed on soft, shifting sands of emotionalism, and should, and I for one expect, will never stand properly exacting tests of history. br> — Al Reynolds /p> p> JUDGE NOT