Ruth Paine

[Paul Trejo]

...So when I say I will show that Ruth Paine was involved in trying to set Oswald up as a commie starting from around mid-October '63, ( a ) it has nothing to do with anyone else's work on this case and ( b ) I will make good on the promise.

I will also show you what a close relative of Mike Paine did during the war because it shows what this family was really all about.

Oh.And I promise I will name the principle behind the assassination backed by extremely powerful circumstantial evidence.

This will be done pas tout de suite because all good things take time.

Well, Greg, I publicly CHALLENGE you to "show that Ruth Paine was involved in trying to set Oswald up as a commie starting from around mid-October '63."

I for one am looking forward to seeing your proposals.

I'm glad to know that your upcoming work has "nothing to do with anyone else's work on this case.". That will save you from the MANY ERRORS of Carol Hewett.

Now, if you're so certain that you can deliver on your promise, Greg, then you must already have all the data and proof in your possession. You want us to wait and pay for your work. OK, I'll buy a copy. But remember, just as I was eager to criticize Carol Hewett, I'm just as eager to subject your work to rigorous logic.

Now, as for your nonsense statement that "a close relative of Mike Paine" has ANYTHING to do with what Michael Paine himself is about, I will always dispute that -- whether it comes from Barbara LaMonica or Steve Jones or Carol Hewett or James DiEugenio or ANYBODY.

Jimmy Carter could have a total screw-up brother, and it says NOTHING at all about the Carter Presidency. Behavior of relatives stands for NOTHING in moral and legal disputes.

So, take your time, Greg, and craft your arguments carefully, because I'll be waiting right here with a red pen.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 2, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Stephen Roy, whom I think is more wrong than right, has written here about groupthink. I believe everyone here has a common definition of groupthink.

Paul Trejo, whose conclusions I reject, attacks groupthink. And is in turn attacked.

This place is like highschool. The most popular male becomes the homecoming king.

Good for the homecoming king.

I say the truth about the JFK assassination is far too bitter to swallow. Either today or in 1963-64. And that goes for LNers and CTers.

I tend to agree with you, Jon. James DiEugenio is the most popular male here -- the homecoming king.

Many people here defend him passionately, without any argument of any kind, they just repeat his slogans (which he formed without logic).

I also agree that the Truth of the JFK murder is horribly bitter. But President GHW Bush thinks that by 26 October 2017 the USA will be ready to hear it through his JFK Records Act. I hope he's right.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 2, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Andric Perez]

There is a Charles Klihr still alive. Is this him? https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-klihr-1393ab65

I doubt it, Andric, because in 1963, Charles Klihr was a volunteer for General Walker's Dallas organization, "Friends of Walker." He was about 30 at the time. That means that today he would be 81, if he's still alive.

Now, the Charles Klihr that you cited is a Design Engineer at Nova Magnetics, Inc. in Dallas, that is. he's a working man, in his 50's, evidently, because of his grey hair. So, it's more likely that the Charles Klihr that you cited might be the son of the Charles Klihr who was a volunteer for the "Friends of Walker" in 1963. That's my estimate.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

He can't be in his 50s, since the page says he attended "North Texas State Teachers College

1949 – 1951".

[Paul Trejo]

There is a Charles Klihr still alive. Is this him? https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-klihr-1393ab65

I doubt it, Andric, because in 1963, Charles Klihr was a volunteer for General Walker's Dallas organization, "Friends of Walker." He was about 30 at the time. That means that today he would be 81, if he's still alive.

Now, the Charles Klihr that you cited is a Design Engineer at Nova Magnetics, Inc. in Dallas, that is. he's a working man, in his 50's, evidently, because of his grey hair. So, it's more likely that the Charles Klihr that you cited might be the son of the Charles Klihr who was a volunteer for the "Friends of Walker" in 1963. That's my estimate.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

He can't be in his 50s, since the page says he attended "North Texas State Teachers College

1949 – 1951".

Interesting, Andric. So, it might be him, after all. My doubt was based on the fact that the man in that photograph doesn't look to be 85 years old. A man who was 21 in 1951 is 85 years old today.

It is rare and unusual to find an 85 year old man still working a steady job. He sure doesn't look 85.

I'm obviously missing something here. I don't see it. Do you? How can an 85 year old guy look so young and hold down a steady job? I don't know anybody like that.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Now, as for your nonsense statement that "a close relative of Mike Paine" has ANYTHING to do with what Michael Paine himself is about, I will always dispute that -- whether it comes from Barbara LaMonica or Steve Jones or Carol Hewett or James DiEugenio or ANYBODY.

With ordinary folk, I'd tend to agree - at least in a general sense. But everything is a case by case proposition.

What you say here doesn't apply to the Boston Brahmins. It's like saying what Prince Charles does has nothing to do with what the Queen is about.

[Paul Trejo]

Now, as for your nonsense statement that "a close relative of Mike Paine" has ANYTHING to do with what Michael Paine himself is about, I will always dispute that -- whether it comes from Barbara LaMonica or Steve Jones or Carol Hewett or James DiEugenio or ANYBODY.

With ordinary folk, I'd tend to agree - at least in a general sense. But everything is a case by case proposition.

What you say here doesn't apply to the Boston Brahmins. It's like saying what Prince Charles does has nothing to do with what the Queen is about.

Not really. We don't have royalty in the USA. People are individuals and individualistic here. Money does impel, but it doesn't compel.

Michael Paine cannot be understood in any other way than a direct and objective study of Michael Paine. Class bias is no way to approach an objective study.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 2, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Now, as for your nonsense statement that "a close relative of Mike Paine" has ANYTHING to do with what Michael Paine himself is about, I will always dispute that -- whether it comes from Barbara LaMonica or Steve Jones or Carol Hewett or James DiEugenio or ANYBODY.

With ordinary folk, I'd tend to agree - at least in a general sense. But everything is a case by case proposition.

What you say here doesn't apply to the Boston Brahmins. It's like saying what Prince Charles does has nothing to do with what the Queen is about.

Not really. We don't have royalty in the USA. People are individuals and individualistic here. Money does impel, but it doesn't compel.

Michael Paine cannot be understood in any other way than a direct study of Michael Paine. Class bias is no way to approach an objective study.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Boston's "Brahmin elite" developed a semi-aristocratic value system by the 1840s. Cultivated, urbane, and dignified, a Boston Brahmin was the very essence of enlightened aristocracy. The ideal Brahmin was not only wealthy, but displayed suitable personal virtues and character traits. The term was coined in 1861 by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.The Brahmin was expected to cultivate the arts, support charities such as hospitals and colleges, and assume the role of community leader. Although the ideal called on him to transcend commonplace business values, in practice many found the thrill of economic success quite attractive. The Brahmins warned each other against "avarice" and insisted upon "personal responsibility". Scandal and divorce were unacceptable. The total system was buttressed by the strong extended family ties present in Boston society. Young men attended the same prep schools and colleges,[5] and heirs married heiresses. Family not only served as an economic asset, but also as a means of moral restraint. Most belong to the Unitarian or Episcopal churches, although some were Congregationalists or Methodists. Politically they were successively Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans. They were marked by their manners and distinctive elocution, the Boston Brahmin accent, version of the New England accent.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/01/boston-brahmins.html

As usual you and the facts aren't even nodding acquaintances.

[Paul Trejo]

Boston's "Brahmin elite" developed a semi-aristocratic value system by the 1840s. Cultivated, urbane, and dignified, a Boston Brahmin was the very essence of enlightened aristocracy. The ideal Brahmin was not only wealthy, but displayed suitable personal virtues and character traits. The term was coined in 1861 by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr.The Brahmin was expected to cultivate the arts, support charities such as hospitals and colleges, and assume the role of community leader. Although the ideal called on him to transcend commonplace business values, in practice many found the thrill of economic success quite attractive. The Brahmins warned each other against "avarice" and insisted upon "personal responsibility". Scandal and divorce were unacceptable. The total system was buttressed by the strong extended family ties present in Boston society. Young men attended the same prep schools and colleges,[5] and heirs married heiresses. Family not only served as an economic asset, but also as a means of moral restraint. Most belong to the Unitarian or Episcopal churches, although some were Congregationalists or Methodists. Politically they were successively Federalists, Whigs, and Republicans. They were marked by their manners and distinctive elocution, the Boston Brahmin accent, version of the New England accent.

http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/01/boston-brahmins.html

As usual you and the facts aren't even nodding acquaintances.

Well, Greg, I'd point out that the literary term "Boston Brahmin" isn't an official sociological category -- it's an artificial, politically-motivated caricature. It's biased, and judges people based on their town and their neighborhood -- like East Baltimore.

It's classist because it isolates individuals because their families have old money going back to the Founding days. The bias in that description you offer shows in the European term, "aristocracy," when in fact the USA has no aristocracy.

In 1861 Oliver Wendell Holmes used the term -- he was a renowned Poet -- so this was a literary term -- nothing more.

While it's generally true that wealthy people from all over the world tend to share some behaviors, like Charity, cultivating the Arts and public office -- the term "Boston Brahmin" just isn't a sociological category.

The fact that Bostonians had WASP values in the early USA should be taken for granted, and not isolated as "character traits." WASP marriage mores were national traits in the early 1800's, and not limited to Boston or its wealthier members.

The fact that WASPs played a major role in the early USA is well known, as most US Presidents have been Episcopalian. JFK was the first Catholic US President.

Actually, however, wealthy Bostonian individual politics are all over the map -- as are most folks from anywhere, USA.

They allegedly had a unique accent -- but does Michael Paine have that accent? No? So, are you really going to base your historical analysis on a literary caricature?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 3, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

In 1861 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used the term

the term "Boston Brahmin" just isn't a sociological category.

You continue to write with much authority while also continuing to display much ignorance.

It was the FATHER of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who coined the term.

I think you better explain your theory that the term is not a sociological one to the eminent sociologist, Paul Dimaggio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_DiMaggio

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR2/dimaggio.pdf

This is what happens when you make stuff up on the fly. You will get called on it.

[Paul Trejo]

Sigh

I 'm still waiting for an explanation from the defenders of Carol Hewett regarding her invention that Michael Paine told the Houston Post on 11/22/1963 that LHO was General Walker's April shooter.

I suppose Carol Hewett just made stuff up on the fly. I wonder if she'll get called on it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 3, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

You continue to write with much authority while also continuing to display much ignorance.

...

I think you better explain your theory that the term is not a sociological one to the eminent sociologist, Paul Dimaggio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_DiMaggio

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~DRBR2/dimaggio.pdf

This is what happens when you make stuff up on the fly. You will get called on it.

Actually Greg, going by that article by eminent sociologist, Paul DiMaggio, one may still argue that the term, Boston Brahmin, is a literary term, and not a sociological category.

In 1983 the sociologist Paul DiMaggio wrote an article for MEDIA, CULTURE AND SOCIETY, entitled: "Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century Boston: the creation of an organizational base for high culture in America."

In this article DiMaggio uses the term "Boston Brahmins" as a reference to the wealthy Bostonians of the 19th century. The article is a focus on one entrepreneur in particular, Henry Lee Higginson, a musician in the 1880's.

So, DiMaggio restricts the usage of this term to its relevance to the century of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., renowned poet who coined the term in the 19th century as a literary flourish.

So, DiMaggio doesn't extend the use of the term to the 20th century, but respects its original, 19th century literary coinage.

Even in his conclusion, when DiMaggio says, "The Museum of Fine Arts and the Boston Symphony Orchestra were creations of the Brahmins, and the Brahmins alone," DiMaggio uses Holme's literary term to refer to wealthy Bostonians in the 1800's.

So one may argue that DiMaggio doesn't use the term as a sociological category, but only as a literary device to focus on wealthy Bostonians of the 19th century.

That said, DiMaggio also uses the term, "aristocrat" when speaking of the USA, even though there are no aristocrats in the USA -- so he let his Cold War politics show. That's poor sociological method.

So, I continue to maintain that the term, "Boston Brahmins" has at best a literary currency -- like "Deep Politics" or "Deep Structures" or other inventions by literary figures with little or no historical method.

That is, to say today that Michael Paine is a "Boston Brahmin" is merely to attack the fact that his family was wealthy, as if this was some sort of a crime. That's poor historical method.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 3, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Actually Greg, going by that article by eminent sociologist, Paul DiMaggio, one may still argue that the term, Boston Brahmin, is a literary term, and not a sociological category.

One may argue any damn thing one wants to argue.

One may argue that Elvis is still alive.

One may argue that the Queen of England is a lizard.

One may argue that the Titans will go unbeaten next season.

Or one may argue about topics such as "sociological categories" - a subject which one shows no knowledge of whatsoever.

[Paul Brancato]

So Paul, what is your term for today's power elite? You can't be serious when you say America has no royalty. If you mean they don't have royal titles or heraldry I get that. I think it's ok to use the word royalty to describe Americas ruling families. I read recently that the Koch family founded the JBS. Don't you think that certain people are above the law?

[Ernie Lazar]

So Paul, what is your term for today's power elite? You can't be serious when you say America has no royalty. If you mean they don't have royal titles or heraldry I get that. I think it's ok to use the word royalty to describe Americas ruling families. I read recently that the Koch family founded the JBS. Don't you think that certain people are above the law?

The Koch family did not found the JBS and Fred Koch resigned from the JBS because (according to his wife), he disagreed with some of the more extreme statements of Robert Welch. There is not much evidence that Fred Koch was ever very active in the JBS. His son, Charles, joined at the suggestion of his father -- but he resigned (along with fellow Kansan Robert Love) because of their policy differences with Welch and the JBS over Vietnam.

[Paul Brancato]

What policy differences over Vietnam are you referring to?