*it's literally the first book published re: the assassination of jfk; like literally using, like, literallcouple of interesting things re: this book:
*it's literally the first book published re: the assassination of jfk; like literally using, like, literally, the literal definition of literal. written prior to the actual release of the warren report; as in, like, written beforethe goddamned actual warren report was written. literally.
*the tom buchanan that wrote this is not daisy buchanan's adulterous cad husband from the novel the great gatsby, penned by american writer frances scott fitzgerald. this is not to say that the name thomas buchanan is not, for whatever inexplicable reason, being utilized as, say, some sort of cypher; or, maybe, to entertain the author w/ his, or her, own private joke. this is not to say the joke is or would be funny. it may not be. its existence itself seems an unlikely possible outcome altogether. then again, this is the kennedy assassination we're talking about here. also, it turns out the author is a somewhat mysterious person, an american journalist & former u.s. military officer living in paris at the time of the assassination. the laziest possible research offers that john simkin--creator of spartacus-educational.com, historian & author prolificus--exchanged words w/ a moron i'll not name here b/c, y'know, everything, in a 2005 jfk-forum (also run by simkin) in which previously mentioned moron so, so, so convincingly invalidates everything thomas g. buchanan ever uttered or put to paper or even had run through his very pink little brain, b/c he was/is/probably was/maybe is a communist then, when he, or she (almost positive it was a he & it was his real name so i'll stop acting appropriately as to the subject), wrote this book; or, at the least, probably at some point up to & including maybe even right now. &, even though this discussion occurred in 2005, the anti-communist stance is straight-up that of someone who lost a nazi relative in ww ii ... in other words, hilarious.
*despite having to create his very own prototype, jfk-assassination leastwise, w/ access only to the earliest "facts" of the case (the majority--nay, the plurality--of, by now, have been long-ago shown to reside somewhere b/w just not smelling right at all, & provable, immutable, damnable & intentional lies--some only recently, others less than a year after the report was published--told or withheld by many different men thought of at that time as beyond reproach) & despite getting several things completely wrong (see first *) & heading down occasional (w/ hindsight, of course) pointless dead-ends, this mysterious thomas g. buchanan, who hasn't written another book since, manages, in my damn near perfect opinion, to get the "who" & the "why" right on the money.
*it contains the best study of the three other u.s. presidential assassinations i've ever come across, & not by a hair or anything. his insights into the historical economical/political/social backdrop of these mostly ignored events & the change of course they resulted in (think, y'know, how reconstruction--yeah, that one--started just shy of over one hundred years late; or, like, the single-most megalomaniacal imperialist rich boy shitbag president this country has ever had went from rhino-riding & mustache twiddling to installing a manifest destiny express lane) the earliest example i know of in the use of the model peter dale scott dubbed as "deep politics," a name he wasn't much enamored of, but as a way of interpreting history, pretty bad ass.
*the picture of it in the right corner of this review was taken by my spooky reflection. that blob is me. hi.
probably seriously maybe quasi review to follow. likely? again, maybe ...
ps. yeah, i called teddy roosevelt a megalomaniacal imperialist rich boy shitbag. what of it?
three stars for the happy meal like packaging of the non-controversial, yet subjective nonetheless, minipediaish cataloging of, at the least, fifty ofthree stars for the happy meal like packaging of the non-controversial, yet subjective nonetheless, minipediaish cataloging of, at the least, fifty of the most thought-provoking psychology theories.
but what is provocation? theories? psychology? thought? fifty? occasional lapses into incoherence a la the preceding circular stupidity mostly just proves what the book subtly admits nearly every entry: you can't really explain shit in half a minute. thirty seconds is more the time zone for panic & huge, irreversible mistakes, like sapping someone who witnessed you in a moment of compromise & running before assessing yer options. or tackling them & forcing a forget-me-now down their throat & rubbing their head until their unconscious. but as usual, i'm getting off point.
i learned some pretty important shit here that i did not know; or, really, was just unaware they were things. ignorance, i think they call it. books like this are good for picking up ideas/facts you should've known already way long ago, thus reducing yer overall chance of sounding stupid at any moment, while simultaneously empowering you to feel more comfortable throwing yer own bull shit opinion out in conversations you might've previously endured silently. if you don't know what i'm talking about, go fuck yerself. i don't really mean that. what i mean is, probably nobody likes you, b/c yer a know-it-all, & we're not. like how i'm we now? anyway, this is why i'm not about to reveal what any of those things that i never really didn't not know in the first place were ... not.
the fourth star is for the art, or design, or graphic design, whatevers. the illustrations, of which at least almost half the book is, are slick, glossy sort of pomo clipart collages that often add nothing, or even make sense in regard to their text counterparts. despite a vague whiff of marketing about them, i find them inexplicably appealing--almost in a pavlovian way. read the book. you'll get the reference. %^]...more