Michael L. Kurtz

While my section of books on the murder of JFK could easily mark me as a conspiracy theorist - a term which Kurtz defends strongly with the delineation of every political murder of the past two centuries as being products of some sort of "conspiracy" - I primarily use the wide breadth of tomes as a method of trying to soberly assess the many ideas out there of just what happened on that world-shattering day in November 1963.

Kurtz has been my favorite of these authors, speaking on a subject to which he's been close since the 60s from an academic view. He's not afraid to change his opinion as new evidence is discovered - and it's being discovered every day. (Why didn't we hear more about Bill Clinton's Assassination Records Review Board in 1992?) Kurtz' writing is sober, concise, and decidedly non-partisan, though he certainly displays his personal opinion carefully throughout. This particular book marks one of those "reset" moments when what we know about the assassination is reassessed and analyzed. The results, as expected, are indisputable, though they will continue to be disputed.

In using the term "indisputable", I'm aware that prominent authors (Bugliosi, Posner) will continue to support the lone-gunman theory, without regard to the physics of possibility, and that the mainstream of the public will continue to turn a blind eye to the likelihood of such a thing, as these disruptions become incompatible with the comfort level of the American lifestyle. Also without further regard to these things, both the FBI investigation immediately after the assassination and the AARB have concluded without question that there was some collusion and a subsequent government cover-up directly impacting public knowledge of the operation. Kurtz explains how and in what manner, though does not conclude who actually pulled the trigger.

Rather, the thesis of the book is the debate itself. Kurtz devotes chapters to evidence supporting both the lone-gunman and conspiracy theories, the life of Lee Harvey Oswald, and the intelligence and mafia connections. He lays out all the ideas and then walks away from it, adding in postulations that he would not have done just a few years ago. My biggest surprise comes only in the last chapter - something that I never before considered to be a possibility, and one which Kurtz actually leans toward in a bizarre use of tone - that of the unshakable possibility that Fidel Castro employed the Havana and Florida mafia to carry out the assassination in retribution for literally dozens of CIA-funded murder attempts on the Cuban dictator's life. While I'd heard the theory before, Kurtz never acceded or explored it to this extent. And after weighing the evidence presented within, even my own opinion is changing. It's what is possible and probable, considering all of the different likelihoods and layers of misinformation. There are not and will never be any definites until a confession or confessions are made, however.

In all, The JFK Assassination Debates fulfills its role as the new standard in being both a primer and a detailed analysis of our current knowledge of the subject, and I recommend it to anyone with even a passing interest in one day revealing what actually happened to one of our most beloved - though by no means sinless – presidents. What is abundantly clear is that it wasn't one man, and it sure as hell wasn't Oswald. But you'll have to make your own assessment of the evidence...… (mais)

2305 Earl K. Long: The Saga of Uncle Earl and Louisiana Politics, by Michael L. Kurtz and Morgan D. Peoples (read 14 Jul 1990) Earl Long was born Aug 26, 1895, at Winnfield, La., and died Sept 5, 1960 at Alexandria, La. He served a short term as Governor in 1939 and 1940, and was elected to four-year terms in 1948 and 1956. He won election to Congress on Aug 27, 1960, but died Sept 5, 1960. This book is rather pedestrian, but tells the story well. It blows hot and cold on Earl, making me wonder if the two authors viewed Earl differently. Earl was obviously more bad than good, and the bad outweighed the good. His last year as governor was a sheer disgrace--the authors conclude he had "bipolar disorder." His crudity repels more than his high political sagacity attracts.… (mais)