Which does not explain the adoption of Word over WordPerfect, Excel over Lotus, Outlook over any of the thousands of POP/IMAP clients, etc... A piece of a puzzle is not the whole puzzle.
While well thought out, there is a very important aspect that you neglect. It was hinted at, but not bluntly called out. That aspect is that a huge part of the reason Windows went into the workplace was because people were familiar with it at home. Marketing played it's part too mind you, but not as much as an exec being able to do everything at work he did at home in the same way.
The same can be said of applications. MS gave Word away. It was horrible compared to competitive products, but it was free. Everyone became familiar with it. Word Perfect required extra knowledge that a home user didn't have. The same exact statement can be said about Excel compared to Lotus 1-2-3.
When MS loses dominance on home devices, people lose that familiarity. It will certainly impact the approach businesses take to OSes and Devices. In fact I'll state it already has, since most large companies are trying to develop any-device anywhere platforms.
1) Tax reform. Not only a real concern to many Americans, but a popular and moving topic. See Ross Perot's platform and how it nearly won him the election.
2) Education Reform. Yes, the US Government should mandate people receive public education. No, they should not be requiring the curriculum to achieve education and mandate the methods.
3) Patent Reform. Most Americans are ignorant to the problems, Corporate media and influence has ensured that much. This will be a challenge, because the issue needs to be simplified so that most Americans can understand the issue. Be ready for lots of money spreading ad homimen in rebuttal.
4) Executive Order powers must be ended.
5) Restore Privacy. Abolish TSA, DHS. Other agencies must be more open to public scrutiny (CIA/FBI/ATF).
I'm sure I could come up with more, but this list is already very hefty.
I am pretty sure you realize what you said is rubbish. Lets take a news example: Interviewer asks Sheriff "Who did it?" and Sheriff states "We don't know, could be accidental or a criminal". You read the report in a Newspaper where they show the quote "Could be criminal". Another source quotes "Could be accidental". Both are correct. The statement was conflicting. This same scenario was presented similarly yesterday with media quoting a Sheriff in Boston.
Now before you claim it's only these scenarios, use your head. Almost all heated discussions are subject to this scenario. Very little boils down to concise mathematical expressions. With math I'd agree with you but with politics, ethics, morality, etc.. is all subject to conflicting statements.
It's not a bad hypothetical, but it's not based in fact any more than what you read on conspiracy sites are fact, or what the Government released was fact. There are lots of hypothetical situations, not all of them require the Devil or Dr. Evil. People have been trained to believe that anyone asking questions is a lunatic, and trained further to never question it themselves. Truth is, we don't have a set of facts to deal with and nobody in the Government is willing to open an investigation, even though it has been proven over and over that their released explanations are impossible.
The Allegory of the Cave is a metaphorical masterpiece. Cognitive dissonance and the human responses to fear and comfort versus facts are both covered.
It's got nothing to do with governments or people lying to each other.
What? The sentences are a question asking "What would happen if a Government keeps it's population enslaved within a cave so that they don't know the outside world exists?" (Translations vary greatly, but most should come very close to that. This comes out in a discussion about how to create a "perfect" Government which requires intense study of currently known and more often than not types of Governments, and how a persons reality can be manipulated.
Sorry dude, you obviously know very little about the Allegory of the Cave. I'd recommend that you read a different translation than you read (If you have actually read it), or a different set of cliff notes or something. Cambridge historical texts are very well done, and little is done in the way of interpreting the Philosophy being discussed as you may find in some College books.
However, there was no news coverage about CISPA was there? I'm not sure any News station has every explained it's pros and cons, let alone took a 5 minute break from their "Live Boston" coverage to discuss the vote.
You have to blame something more reasonable than MURAKA NEWS BRAH!
Do you have the Mercenary logo on your shirt, hat, and carry a gun at public events as a Mercenary and not an officer of the law? Would you be a bit bothered if you went to the State Fair with the Kids and Blackwater guards were patrolling fully armed? Personally I'd leave, they are not police and something is wrong with that situation. What is more wrong, is someone thinking it's no big deal or normal. Then again, maybe citizen34057 is fully integrated into the police state and trying to get a better home for his one allowed wife and one child.
There is no easy solution to the self-censoring, and eradication of the wider perspective of any story by the press. However, the Internet has made a huge difference and will only grow in importance. Internet news is bad in that bad reporting and fallacies live forever, but it has the huge advantage that anyone with an interest can fact-check and self-publish articles that can reference all sorts of detailed information.
Agreed, this is why so many other sites are popping up currently. I hope it grows, because what we have in media today called "News" is anything but news.
Unfortunately that means that the huge number of people who only get their news through mainstream media have a very narrow and distorted picture of reality (which is why they voted Obama a second term to further fsck up the US economy [through government overspending on *massive* entitlement programmes the US simply cannot afford] and its Constitutional liberties).
As to the article linked: Where do they claim it was a specific backpack? They are saying that Mercenaries at the event wear similar backpacks and are not named as persons of interest. Their questions start with "Why a Mercenary Company is at this event to begin with?" It is very much worth questioning why a Mercenary Company is patrolling Boston's streets instead of, you know.. the Boston Police, Massachusetts State Police, and Sheriff's offices. They are also showing that the bombs could have been placed by Mercenaries as easily as some random person they have not yet found. They are not even claiming that the Merc company was in on it, but rather the guys walking around should be persons of interest and interrogated by the Police.
Do they spend too much time on the radiometer? I think some of their questions on the device are over the top, maybe just to make sure you see them. Maybe they suspect them as detonation devices and just didn't say so? I don't know their thoughts on it, I just read the article. I agree with them that the media has never mentioned hired Mercenaries at this event, and it does seem rather odd. Is it explainable? Maybe, if you don't know to ask why they are there you don't know to ask for an explanation do you? And nobody seems to be volunteering information.
To your first point: People asking questions still regarding 911 are just idiots? You have all the answers to building 7? Maybe ou must have found all of the plane debris from PA right? Or you found the plane debris at the Pentagon, and figured out all of the physics required to explain a hole much smaller than the plane that hit the building, and no wing marks? Over 3,000 Architects, Engineers, and Physicists have stated that the Government answer to how and why T1 and T2 fell is impossible, maybe you have all of the answers they are looking for? You have none of those things, and you won't even acknowledge the questions.
Let me point this out really simply. Claiming you were told a lie is not the same as having the truth. If I claimed I knew the answers to the above, feel free to call me what ever you like. The majority of people asking questions are not asking because they know answers, they are asking because what they were told can not be true. Science has tested the released answers over and over, and the released answers fail.
Maybe you are so afraid of cognitive dissonance that you won't bother to look at the questions people are asking, or why they are asking. It's much easier to believe that Uncle Sam and the Media would never ever lie to you. Even though there is ample proof that both happen commonly, you will still vehemently deny that it happens. The fact that people behave that way goes back at least a couple thousand years, and is written in the Allegory of the Cave.
Please, don't bother feeding me.. I'd starve to death trying to absorb your wealth of knowledge.
Not that long ago, around 10'ish years every major news agency had investigative reporters. Living in Detroit, there was Steve Smith covering the Kwame scandals. Before that, he had stories on corruption in all kinds of other areas. Public service workers (tracking them working a few hours a week getting paid for 40 hrs), police corruption, utilities corruption, etc.. It was the highest rated show in Detroit for years. It was real journalism.
Long before Kwame went to trial for anything big, they fired him. The best rated show in Detroit was canned for no visible reason. Other news agencies had their local reporter too. All of them were canned, and there went all investigative journalism in Detroit. AP stories was it, nothing else. About the same time, this happened in other major markets as well. I have relatives and friends in at least 8 other major cities. Nashville, Jersey, Chicago, etc..
Maybe it was simply because of the money. Cheaper to get AP news than pay a reporter. But to lose viewers and ratings at the same time means they lost what they saved. Trust me, I'm not immune to noticing that companies do some really idiotic things to make a quick buck.. but I thought the News issue was bigger. Still do as a matter of fact. Way too many people were warning us about what was coming. You have to look to find them, but they were there. I remember a great speech by a celebrity concerned when they allowed Rupert Murdoch to monopolize most of the News Networks. "What happens when their interests, and the AP's interests, no longer match yours?" is a great quote. We never heard most of the people yelling "STOP IT", because most of the media was already under the control of less than a handful of people.
The easy mark to look at is the money involved. Is it really about the money, or is it about propaganda? If you investigate things about 911 and look into building 7, the lack of plane debris in PA and the Pentagon, you really should be questioning whether it's really all about money. Look at the lack of coverage on Obama signing the NDAA on any major media, the lack of coverage on the dozens of wars we are waging, the lack of coverage on drone strikes in the middle east. I'll add the lack of coverage regarding Egypt, the specific comments every major media outlet has regarding Syria and North Korea.
I found this article interesting at least, and they point out that main stream media never even mentions these guys.
Obviously CNN failed and has become a joke, but Fox/NBC and ABC are just as bad. Either they make shit up or tell you nothing. The Daily Show showed what most of us think of CNN last night.
Yeah yeah, here come the "you are just a conspiracy theorist" comments. Anyone that asks a question, or suggests that people ask questions, must be crazy because the media told you so.
Ahh, that is the point I was getting at exactly. As Socrates wisely stated "The only persons allowed to represent the people in the Republic should be those that have no desire to be politicians." (translations very).
If people started to catch on to his words, we would begin to see things change. Get out there and start preaching, and get others to help. Things can happen.
Makes better sense now, thanks for the extrapolation. I still think the geography reference of "North" would not fit, but the explanation adds clarity to the bad decisions portion of your comments.
So you are obviously not voting the right people into office. It's like picking potential wives at the bar, then expecting them to A) Not go to bars, and B) stop drinking, after you get married. If you want a person to stay at home and not drink, you probably won't find her at a bar.
Unfortunately many people lack the ability to see things rationally. I blame our education system personally, as the citizen's education must follow rules imposed by the Government.
Disagree, it's more an issue of people presenting a partial set of facts which back their position, which has become extremely common. The debated issues are complex, and it's not simply facts showing one black and two white items. There are hundreds to millions of facts that need to be considered together.
If presented partial facts, of course my theories will differ from someone who has the full set or a different partial set. The same would be true with you, or anyone else.
Most often, the heated debates are trying to cycle through each set of facts and reconcile the differences.
You have been replying to me, who defended your position and said that the asteroid was a straw man. You distinctly defended that person several times claiming that the asteroid was not a straw man.
As mentioned, I have no idea why you are defending someone that said you were wrong.
I don't get your reference to what is North of Wynnum at all. Generally a "N-City North" is "North" of "N-City". "N-City South" would be "South" of "N-City". Can you extrapolate your point a bit and why it links to what is North of Wynnum?
You have never experienced conflicting facts? If that's the case, call the rest of the world after you come out of that very small cave you hide in.
The reason these debates become so heated is because of conflicting facts. Much of the debate is weighing the merit of each sides "facts" and very little time is spent on the opinions.
Come now, it's not just Texas, and it's not new either (not that you said or implied it was "new", just clarifying my point). Pittsburgh grew up around smelters and steal mills, Detroit grew up around them too. Both of those grew out of towns that grew because of mines (salt in Detroit, coal in Pittsburgh). Living near where you work is a very sensible thing to do in most cases. It allows people to balance work and home responsibilities and still get some rest.
Safety zones are a rather new phenomon in human history, and for a lot of things we don't have them. Don't really need them in my opinion either. We'll never be able to make everything accident proof.
Why bother with the charade? It's not like people have any choice anyway.
Contrary to your fallacy, you most surely do have a choice assuming you really want one. You must work to get petitions out and put people on ballots that you trust. Word of mouth, and friends word of mouth, and relatives word of mouth. With enough signatures, you could be on a ballot as easily as BHO. It takes effort, but is absolutely possible.
People are told they have no choices, and are told that voting for anyone but R or D hurts everyone. Those are both absolute fallacies, in addition to being historically incorrect. Stop believing the rhetoric and we have a chance of restoring the republic.
We have not yet had people avoid the D or R like the plague and do what we are constitutionally allowed to do, and are warned throughout history we should be doing it.
Until we see that fail, there is still a choice. Hard work is required, don't get me wrong. But at present, still feasible.
For Presidents? You have to go back to the 60s in my opinion, though some may argue there were some later. One particular president was very concerned about what was happening and was assassinated. I'm not claiming JFK was an angel, but I don't think he was playing on their team either.
Slashdot Mirror
Which does not explain the adoption of Word over WordPerfect, Excel over Lotus, Outlook over any of the thousands of POP/IMAP clients, etc... A piece of a puzzle is not the whole puzzle.
While well thought out, there is a very important aspect that you neglect. It was hinted at, but not bluntly called out. That aspect is that a huge part of the reason Windows went into the workplace was because people were familiar with it at home. Marketing played it's part too mind you, but not as much as an exec being able to do everything at work he did at home in the same way.
The same can be said of applications. MS gave Word away. It was horrible compared to competitive products, but it was free. Everyone became familiar with it. Word Perfect required extra knowledge that a home user didn't have. The same exact statement can be said about Excel compared to Lotus 1-2-3.
When MS loses dominance on home devices, people lose that familiarity. It will certainly impact the approach businesses take to OSes and Devices. In fact I'll state it already has, since most large companies are trying to develop any-device anywhere platforms.
1) Tax reform. Not only a real concern to many Americans, but a popular and moving topic. See Ross Perot's platform and how it nearly won him the election.
2) Education Reform. Yes, the US Government should mandate people receive public education. No, they should not be requiring the curriculum to achieve education and mandate the methods.
3) Patent Reform. Most Americans are ignorant to the problems, Corporate media and influence has ensured that much. This will be a challenge, because the issue needs to be simplified so that most Americans can understand the issue. Be ready for lots of money spreading ad homimen in rebuttal.
4) Executive Order powers must be ended.
5) Restore Privacy. Abolish TSA, DHS. Other agencies must be more open to public scrutiny (CIA/FBI/ATF).
I'm sure I could come up with more, but this list is already very hefty.
I am pretty sure you realize what you said is rubbish. Lets take a news example: Interviewer asks Sheriff "Who did it?" and Sheriff states "We don't know, could be accidental or a criminal". You read the report in a Newspaper where they show the quote "Could be criminal". Another source quotes "Could be accidental". Both are correct. The statement was conflicting. This same scenario was presented similarly yesterday with media quoting a Sheriff in Boston.
Now before you claim it's only these scenarios, use your head. Almost all heated discussions are subject to this scenario. Very little boils down to concise mathematical expressions. With math I'd agree with you but with politics, ethics, morality, etc.. is all subject to conflicting statements.
It's not a bad hypothetical, but it's not based in fact any more than what you read on conspiracy sites are fact, or what the Government released was fact. There are lots of hypothetical situations, not all of them require the Devil or Dr. Evil. People have been trained to believe that anyone asking questions is a lunatic, and trained further to never question it themselves. Truth is, we don't have a set of facts to deal with and nobody in the Government is willing to open an investigation, even though it has been proven over and over that their released explanations are impossible.
Gah.. s/The\ sentences/The\ first\ sentences/
The Allegory of the Cave is a metaphorical masterpiece. Cognitive dissonance and the human responses to fear and comfort versus facts are both covered.
It's got nothing to do with governments or people lying to each other.
What? The sentences are a question asking "What would happen if a Government keeps it's population enslaved within a cave so that they don't know the outside world exists?" (Translations vary greatly, but most should come very close to that. This comes out in a discussion about how to create a "perfect" Government which requires intense study of currently known and more often than not types of Governments, and how a persons reality can be manipulated.
Sorry dude, you obviously know very little about the Allegory of the Cave. I'd recommend that you read a different translation than you read (If you have actually read it), or a different set of cliff notes or something. Cambridge historical texts are very well done, and little is done in the way of interpreting the Philosophy being discussed as you may find in some College books.
However, there was no news coverage about CISPA was there? I'm not sure any News station has every explained it's pros and cons, let alone took a 5 minute break from their "Live Boston" coverage to discuss the vote.
You have to blame something more reasonable than MURAKA NEWS BRAH!
Do you have the Mercenary logo on your shirt, hat, and carry a gun at public events as a Mercenary and not an officer of the law? Would you be a bit bothered if you went to the State Fair with the Kids and Blackwater guards were patrolling fully armed? Personally I'd leave, they are not police and something is wrong with that situation. What is more wrong, is someone thinking it's no big deal or normal. Then again, maybe citizen34057 is fully integrated into the police state and trying to get a better home for his one allowed wife and one child.
There is no easy solution to the self-censoring, and eradication of the wider perspective of any story by the press. However, the Internet has made a huge difference and will only grow in importance. Internet news is bad in that bad reporting and fallacies live forever, but it has the huge advantage that anyone with an interest can fact-check and self-publish articles that can reference all sorts of detailed information.
Agreed, this is why so many other sites are popping up currently. I hope it grows, because what we have in media today called "News" is anything but news.
Unfortunately that means that the huge number of people who only get their news through mainstream media have a very narrow and distorted picture of reality (which is why they voted Obama a second term to further fsck up the US economy [through government overspending on *massive* entitlement programmes the US simply cannot afford] and its Constitutional liberties).
Well stated.
As to the article linked: Where do they claim it was a specific backpack? They are saying that Mercenaries at the event wear similar backpacks and are not named as persons of interest. Their questions start with "Why a Mercenary Company is at this event to begin with?" It is very much worth questioning why a Mercenary Company is patrolling Boston's streets instead of, you know.. the Boston Police, Massachusetts State Police, and Sheriff's offices. They are also showing that the bombs could have been placed by Mercenaries as easily as some random person they have not yet found. They are not even claiming that the Merc company was in on it, but rather the guys walking around should be persons of interest and interrogated by the Police.
Do they spend too much time on the radiometer? I think some of their questions on the device are over the top, maybe just to make sure you see them. Maybe they suspect them as detonation devices and just didn't say so? I don't know their thoughts on it, I just read the article. I agree with them that the media has never mentioned hired Mercenaries at this event, and it does seem rather odd. Is it explainable? Maybe, if you don't know to ask why they are there you don't know to ask for an explanation do you? And nobody seems to be volunteering information.
To your first point: People asking questions still regarding 911 are just idiots? You have all the answers to building 7? Maybe ou must have found all of the plane debris from PA right? Or you found the plane debris at the Pentagon, and figured out all of the physics required to explain a hole much smaller than the plane that hit the building, and no wing marks? Over 3,000 Architects, Engineers, and Physicists have stated that the Government answer to how and why T1 and T2 fell is impossible, maybe you have all of the answers they are looking for? You have none of those things, and you won't even acknowledge the questions.
Let me point this out really simply. Claiming you were told a lie is not the same as having the truth. If I claimed I knew the answers to the above, feel free to call me what ever you like. The majority of people asking questions are not asking because they know answers, they are asking because what they were told can not be true. Science has tested the released answers over and over, and the released answers fail.
Maybe you are so afraid of cognitive dissonance that you won't bother to look at the questions people are asking, or why they are asking. It's much easier to believe that Uncle Sam and the Media would never ever lie to you. Even though there is ample proof that both happen commonly, you will still vehemently deny that it happens. The fact that people behave that way goes back at least a couple thousand years, and is written in the Allegory of the Cave.
Please, don't bother feeding me.. I'd starve to death trying to absorb your wealth of knowledge.
Not that long ago, around 10'ish years every major news agency had investigative reporters. Living in Detroit, there was Steve Smith covering the Kwame scandals. Before that, he had stories on corruption in all kinds of other areas. Public service workers (tracking them working a few hours a week getting paid for 40 hrs), police corruption, utilities corruption, etc.. It was the highest rated show in Detroit for years. It was real journalism.
Long before Kwame went to trial for anything big, they fired him. The best rated show in Detroit was canned for no visible reason. Other news agencies had their local reporter too. All of them were canned, and there went all investigative journalism in Detroit. AP stories was it, nothing else. About the same time, this happened in other major markets as well. I have relatives and friends in at least 8 other major cities. Nashville, Jersey, Chicago, etc..
Maybe it was simply because of the money. Cheaper to get AP news than pay a reporter. But to lose viewers and ratings at the same time means they lost what they saved. Trust me, I'm not immune to noticing that companies do some really idiotic things to make a quick buck.. but I thought the News issue was bigger. Still do as a matter of fact. Way too many people were warning us about what was coming. You have to look to find them, but they were there. I remember a great speech by a celebrity concerned when they allowed Rupert Murdoch to monopolize most of the News Networks. "What happens when their interests, and the AP's interests, no longer match yours?" is a great quote. We never heard most of the people yelling "STOP IT", because most of the media was already under the control of less than a handful of people.
The easy mark to look at is the money involved. Is it really about the money, or is it about propaganda? If you investigate things about 911 and look into building 7, the lack of plane debris in PA and the Pentagon, you really should be questioning whether it's really all about money. Look at the lack of coverage on Obama signing the NDAA on any major media, the lack of coverage on the dozens of wars we are waging, the lack of coverage on drone strikes in the middle east. I'll add the lack of coverage regarding Egypt, the specific comments every major media outlet has regarding Syria and North Korea.
I found this article interesting at least, and they point out that main stream media never even mentions these guys.
Obviously CNN failed and has become a joke, but Fox/NBC and ABC are just as bad. Either they make shit up or tell you nothing. The Daily Show showed what most of us think of CNN last night.
Yeah yeah, here come the "you are just a conspiracy theorist" comments. Anyone that asks a question, or suggests that people ask questions, must be crazy because the media told you so.
Did you not later state that the asteroid was a straw man? Did you not also point at scarcity not crashing the market with an example?
My original post was not unjustified at all. After you defended the person's asteroid argument, you agreed with my original points.
Maybe we were both confused about whom was posting what? I'll give the benefit of the doubt.
s/very/vary/
Long day already, apologies for poor grammar.
Ahh, that is the point I was getting at exactly. As Socrates wisely stated "The only persons allowed to represent the people in the Republic should be those that have no desire to be politicians." (translations very).
If people started to catch on to his words, we would begin to see things change. Get out there and start preaching, and get others to help. Things can happen.
Makes better sense now, thanks for the extrapolation. I still think the geography reference of "North" would not fit, but the explanation adds clarity to the bad decisions portion of your comments.
So you are obviously not voting the right people into office. It's like picking potential wives at the bar, then expecting them to A) Not go to bars, and B) stop drinking, after you get married. If you want a person to stay at home and not drink, you probably won't find her at a bar.
Unfortunately many people lack the ability to see things rationally. I blame our education system personally, as the citizen's education must follow rules imposed by the Government.
Disagree, it's more an issue of people presenting a partial set of facts which back their position, which has become extremely common. The debated issues are complex, and it's not simply facts showing one black and two white items. There are hundreds to millions of facts that need to be considered together.
If presented partial facts, of course my theories will differ from someone who has the full set or a different partial set. The same would be true with you, or anyone else.
Most often, the heated debates are trying to cycle through each set of facts and reconcile the differences.
You have been replying to me, who defended your position and said that the asteroid was a straw man. You distinctly defended that person several times claiming that the asteroid was not a straw man.
As mentioned, I have no idea why you are defending someone that said you were wrong.
I don't get your reference to what is North of Wynnum at all. Generally a "N-City North" is "North" of "N-City". "N-City South" would be "South" of "N-City". Can you extrapolate your point a bit and why it links to what is North of Wynnum?
Not being an ass, simply confused.
You have never experienced conflicting facts? If that's the case, call the rest of the world after you come out of that very small cave you hide in.
The reason these debates become so heated is because of conflicting facts. Much of the debate is weighing the merit of each sides "facts" and very little time is spent on the opinions.
Come now, it's not just Texas, and it's not new either (not that you said or implied it was "new", just clarifying my point). Pittsburgh grew up around smelters and steal mills, Detroit grew up around them too. Both of those grew out of towns that grew because of mines (salt in Detroit, coal in Pittsburgh). Living near where you work is a very sensible thing to do in most cases. It allows people to balance work and home responsibilities and still get some rest.
Safety zones are a rather new phenomon in human history, and for a lot of things we don't have them. Don't really need them in my opinion either. We'll never be able to make everything accident proof.
Why bother with the charade? It's not like people have any choice anyway.
Contrary to your fallacy, you most surely do have a choice assuming you really want one. You must work to get petitions out and put people on ballots that you trust. Word of mouth, and friends word of mouth, and relatives word of mouth. With enough signatures, you could be on a ballot as easily as BHO. It takes effort, but is absolutely possible.
People are told they have no choices, and are told that voting for anyone but R or D hurts everyone. Those are both absolute fallacies, in addition to being historically incorrect. Stop believing the rhetoric and we have a chance of restoring the republic.
We have not yet had people avoid the D or R like the plague and do what we are constitutionally allowed to do, and are warned throughout history we should be doing it.
Until we see that fail, there is still a choice. Hard work is required, don't get me wrong. But at present, still feasible.
For Presidents? You have to go back to the 60s in my opinion, though some may argue there were some later. One particular president was very concerned about what was happening and was assassinated. I'm not claiming JFK was an angel, but I don't think he was playing on their team either.