A Family First: Joe Kennedy III first in the clan to lose a Massachusetts election

To which I say,

GOOD!

It’s about damn time!

Joe Kennedy III, who is the 40-year old grandson of slain Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, challenged incumbent Ed Markey for the state’s upcoming U.S. Senate seat in the Democratic primary.

Kennedy lost.

It was a landmark, a high water mark, an event of immensely significant importance.

Perhaps it even intoned cataclysmic changes ahead.

Good ones, of course.

Just like “good trouble.”

The Boston Globe characterized Kennedy’s campaign style as an “increasingly bare-knuckled offensive,” while the headlines across the world were interesting… if not telling.

Let’s examine a few of the headlines from throughout the nation, and then, we’ll move along to WHY it’s a good thing that not-so-poor little Joe P. Kennedy III lost.

• The Boston Globe had a straight-forward “Ed Markey beats Joe Kennedy in Senate primary.”

• While the Boston Herald wrote a more colorful, “Joe Kennedy, others lose out to the old geezer incumbents.”

• The Daily Mail of the United Kingdom, however, had a more telling, embarrassing, and detailed pronouncement, “The end of a dynasty: RFK’s grandson Joe Kennedy III becomes the first member of his family to lose a Massachusetts election as he is defeated in Senate primary in JFK’s old seat.”

• New York’s venerable “Gray Lady” wrote semi-wishful we-wish-it-was-almost-a-contest type of headline as, “Markey Holds Off Joseph Kennedy in Massachusetts Senate Race.”

• The Rupert Murdoch-owned right-leaning tabloid-type New York Post wrote, “Joe Kennedy III suffers stinging defeat to Ed Markey in Mass. Senate primary.“

• The Daily Beast wrote an unvarnished sobriquet, “Sen. Ed Markey Fends Off Challenge From Rep. Joe Kennedy III-Camelot Lost.”

• NPR wrote a steady-as-she-goes observation that, “Markey Fends Off Kennedy Challenge In High Profile Mass. Senate Primary.”

• The Los Angeles Times wrote a semi-obituary with, “A Kennedy loses in Massachusetts and a storied dynasty fades.”

• The Hill composed a  bare bones headline with, “Markey defeats Kennedy in Massachusetts.”

• POLITICO wrote a blame-game headline with, “The Unlikely Kennedy Who Ended the Kennedy Dynasty.”

• Ever the standard, the Associated Press wrote, “Markey defeats Kennedy III in Massachusetts’ Senate primary.”

• Business Insider wrote a more opinionated headline with, “Ed Markey defeats primary challenger Rep. Joe Kennedy, in a major victory for the left.”

• Bloomberg wrote a fact-based, plain-Jane headline with, “Ed Markey Wins Massachusetts Democratic Primary, Defeating Joe Kennedy.”

• The Chicago Tribune similarly wrote a fact-based headline with, “Sen. Edward Markey defeats Rep. Joe Kennedy III in Massachusetts’ Senate primary.”

• CNN had a different historical name recognition perspective with, “Sen. Ed Markey defeats a Kennedy in Massachusetts.”

• CQ RollCall wrote, “A Massachusetts first: Kennedy loses Senate primary to Markey.”

• The Guardian wrote a fact-based, “Edward Markey defeats Joe Kennedy in Massachusetts Democratic primary.”

• United Press International wrote a no-frills, straight-forward, “Ed Markey defeats Joe Kennedy III in Massachusetts primary race.”

Here’s also a wee bit of background to aid understanding.

Joseph Patrick Kennedy, Sr. (wearing glasses) family portrait

The Kennedy name, of course, is renown in American politics. And for perspective, Joe P. III is the grandson of the slain Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (1925-1968). And Joe P. III is named for the family progenitor, Joseph Patrick Kennedy (1888-1969) – long rumored by numerous sources to have been a bootlegger during Prohibition, which, if the sources were lying, and the claim not true, would question their motives, since the senior Kennedy has long been dead.

That piddling matter aside, however, suffice it to say that the Kennedy family is wealthy… VERY wealthy. Maybe not Bill Gates, or Warren Buffet wealthy, but wealthy nonetheless. Forbes magazine writer Carl O’Donnell in the July 8, 2014 online edition, wrote about the Kennedy family wealth as follows:

“If America had an aristocracy, the most titled bloodline would certainly be the Kennedys. In the past half century, one Kennedy after another has occupied nearly every political position America has to offer, including the roles of congressman, senator, ambassador, mayor, SEC chairman, state representative, city councilman, and, of course, President.

“The sustaining force behind the Kennedys reign is hardly a secret. Thanks to Joseph P. Kennedy, who made a fortune from insider trading only to later chair the SEC, the family is fabulously rich. But exactly how much is America’s first family worth? Forbes pegs the extended family’s fortune at $1 billion.

“Protected by a labyrinth of trusts, as well as tax strategies that would make Joseph P. Kennedy proud, the Kennedy fortune now spans approximately 30 family members, and includes the surnames Shriver, Lawford and the Smith. At nearly $175 million as of 2013, Caroline Kennedy is the richest descendant by far, but more modestly endowed relatives, such as Robert Shriver, who is running for Los Angeles County Supervisor, still possess assets in the tens of millions, according to public financial disclosures required of government officials.

“The bulk of the family’s wealth is held in dozens of trusts, which range in value from tens of thousands to as much as $25 million. Nearly all are managed by Joseph P. Kennedy Enterprises, a family office located in New York City with assets dating back to 1927, according to Christopher Kennedy, a member of the Kennedy family who sits on the office’s board.

“Joseph P. Kennedy’s choice to place his fortune in trusts is possibly the single most critical reason why the family wealth is still around today. The most obvious benefit was to protect the fortune from the prying fingers of ne’er-do-well heirs, said Laurence Leamer, who wrote three Kennedy biographies. Trusts often prevent beneficiaries from tapping more than 10 percent of principal, said Rick Kruse, principal at Kruse and Crawford, which offers estate management advice.

“The trusts also protect the family assets from another set of prying fingers: Uncle Sam’s. By holding assets in so called “dynasty trusts,” which are passed from heir to heir for decades, if not longer, the Kennedy family fortune is largely insulated from the estate tax, Kruse said. Handled correctly, a dynasty trust could potentially maintain an un-taxable fortune indefinitely. The oldest Kennedy trust on record dates back to 1936.

“Like politics, tax savvy seems to run in the Kennedy family. The most recent example is

How the Sackler family, private owners of OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma, became America’s BIGGEST drug pushers.

NPR, along with a few other news reporting agencies, has today published a story detailing how the Sackler family – with an estimated net worth of $13 Billion and listed by Forbes as the 19th wealthiest family in the United States – whose privately-held Purdue Pharma falsified, neglected, and purposely withheld information, and aggressively peddled their habit-forming narcotic medication branded as “OxyContin” to physicians, hospitals, and medical colleges as an acceptable, even benign medication for pain relief, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Purdue Pharma President Richard Sackler, and wife Beverly are the biggest narco-traffickers in the United States.

In a 274 page filing, the Massachusetts Attorney General, Maura Healey, carefully detailed how the Sackler family carefully and deliberately manipulated, and crafted opportunities with Massachusetts’ legislators, regulators, and others, to sell increasing volumes of the narcotic medicine.

The documents state that in a 2-15-2011 email, after one week of prescriptions doubled the company’s profit forecasts, Richard Sackler wrote to the sales staff that “I had hoped for better results.”

Massachussetts Attorney General’s Office pre-hearing memo & exhibits

https://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2019/01/Mass_AGO_Pre-Hearing_Memo_and_Exhibits.pdf

But here’s where an otherwise LEGAL pharmaceutical firm became complicit with international narco-traffickers and street-level drug pushers, rapidly escalated America’s Opioid Crisis, and in the process became equals with terrorists like al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The Massachusetts Attorney General Pre-Hearing memorandum cited a

Massachusetts declines prosecuting Amy Bishop for her brother’s death

UAH shooter Amy Bishop wants trial on brother‘s killing to prove ‘loving and caring relationship’ with him (updated)

Published: Tuesday, October 02, 2012, 9:22 AM
Updated: Tuesday, October 02, 2012, 11:59 AM

By The Associated Press

BOSTON — The former University of Alabama in Huntsville professor sentenced to life in prison last week in a shooting rampage that killed three of her colleagues wants to go on trial in the 1986 death of her brother in Massachusetts.

Madison County corrections officers escort UAH shooter Amy Bishop to a courtroom for her plea hearing on Thursday, Sept. 22, 2011. (The Huntsville Times/Glenn Baeske)

Court documents filed by Amy Bishop‘s lawyer say she objects to a decision by Norfolk District Attorney Michael Morrissey to decline to prosecute her in the killing of 18-year-old Seth Bishop.

Attorney Larry Tipton says Bishop wants to prove at trial that she had a “loving and caring relationship” with her brother and that the shooting was accidental.

David Traub, a spokesman for the Norfolk County District Attorney’s Office said this morning that the filing was “legally meaningless.”

Roy Miller and Robert Tuten, who helped defend Bishop in her Alabama criminal case, said they thought it was highly unlikely that Alabama would ever release Bishop to face charges in Massachusetts.

“It’ll be a cold day in hell when Alabama

Arnold Schwarzenegger on ObamaCare

Lesley Stahl of CBS news program 60 Minutes recently interviewed Arnold Schwarzenegger for an episode which aired Sunday, September 30, 2012. Among the topics discussed in their broad-ranging interview was his term as California governor and his signature health reform law.

She read from Mr. Schwarzenegger’s recently published autobiography the following: “My plan

Amy Bishop gets off scot-free in brother’s murder

—

Ex-Alabama prof won’t be tried in brother’s death

By JAY LINDSAY Associated Press  / September 28, 2012

FILE – This Feb. 13, 2010, file booking photo provided by the Huntsville, Ala., Police Department shows college professor Amy Bishop, charged with capital murder in the Feb. 12, 2010 shooting deaths of three faculty members at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Bishop pleaded guilty to capital murder charges in an agreement that will send to her prison for the rest of her life and make her ineligible for the death penalty. A judge scheduled jury selection for Monday, Sept. 24, 2012, as a trial is still required under Alabama law because Bishop admitted to a capital charge of murder. (AP Photo/Huntsville Police Department, File)

BOSTON (AP) — A former Alabama professor convicted of fatally shooting three colleagues won’t face a Massachusetts murder trial in the 1986 death of her brother after prosecutors withdrew their indictment.

The announcement Friday by the Norfolk district attorney follows Amy Bishop’s sentencing this week to life in prison without parole for the killings at the University of Alabama-Huntsville in February 2010.

In a statement, Michael Morrissey said the life sentence his office would have pursued in the killing of 18-year-old Seth Bishop was identical to the punishment she received after her guilty plea in Alabama, so there was no need to move forward.

‘‘We will not move to have her returned to Massachusetts,’’ Morrissey said. ‘‘The penalty we would seek for a first degree murder conviction is already in place.’’

The office withdrew the indictment ‘‘without prejudice,’’ meaning Morrissey could reinstate it if something went wrong in the Alabama sentence, though he said he considered that unlikely.

Amy Bishop, convicted of killing three colleagues at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, appears on the cover of the January 2009 cover of the Huntsville R&D Report.

Bishop said

Mitt Romney, the “Etch-A-Sketch” Flip-Flop candidate, flips again. This time, on “ObamaCare.” Borderline Personality Disorder?

Given the number of statements which Mitt Romney has made – statements in which he contradicts his own previous statements – it’s more than disconcerting that Mitt Romney has once again switched positions. Late former president Ronald Reagan – then candidate Reagan – once famously intoned while campaigning “there go you again.”

This, however, makes Mitt Romney appear almost schizophrenic, out of touch with reality, incapable of taking a position, constantly changing positions, being a moving target, a reed blown by the wind, wishy-washy, two-faced, hypocritical, liar, indecisive, and more.

“Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) (according to the ICD-10 World Health Organization disease classification, emotionally unstable personality disorder, borderline type) is a personality disorder marked by a prolonged disturbance of personality function, characterized by unusual variability and depth of moods.”

Those are NOT the qualities America needs in it’s Chief Executive.

—

Romney backs away from healthcare pledge

By Anna Fifield in Washington
September 9, 2012 6:18 pm

Mitt Romney has said he would keep the most popular parts of Barack Obama’s signature healthcare reforms if elected president, performing an abrupt about-turn on his earlier campaign promise to repeal the whole law.

His comments will reignite suspicions that the Republican presidential candidate is a politician of expediency and

“He doesn’t talk about the fact that he’s been governor of Massachusetts for four years very much.”

“CBS This Morning” co-host Charlie Rose sat down Thursday, July 12, 2012 with President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama in the blue room of the White House for a wide-ranging exclusive interview.

Q:
How do you take the measure of his business experience?

A:
I do not think at all it disqualifies him.
But I also think it’s important, if that’s his main calling card, if his basic premise is that ‘I’m Mr. Fix-It on the economy’ because I made a lot of money…

The Irony of the Death: The first nails in the coffin of DOMA were all done by Republicans.

The stinking irony of the whole matter is that the folks who are primarily responsible for the federal death of DOMA is that…

they’re REPUBLICAN.

So who’re your hypocrites?

Who’re your radicals now?

—

In Defense of Marriage

Editorial
Published: June 2, 2012

The federal appeals court ruling last week that struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act did not say whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry, but the decision sets the stage for what will almost certainly be a Supreme Court showdown over the unfair treatment of gay people and their families.

The ruling on Thursday by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, based in Boston, marked the first time a federal appellate court had ruled against the 1996 law, which excludes same-sex couples from federal benefits accorded heterosexual married couples. (like being allowed to filed joint tax returns and to receive Social Security survivor payments).

The case was heard by two judges nominated by Republican presidents and one Democratic nominee. It involved married couples in Massachusetts, which is among the handful of states where gay couples may lawfully wed. The marriage law was being defended by lawyers hired by the Republican majority in the House after the Obama administration finally acknowledged that it was unconstitutional and decided to stop defending it in court.

The panel’s key finding was that there was no “demonstrated connection” between the law’s hurtful treatment of same-sex couples and “its asserted goal of strengthening the bonds and benefits” of heterosexual marriage. It also said another rationale for the law — that it preserves scarce federal resources — was simply not true.

We were disappointed that the panel declined to

Newt Gingrich supported Obamacare before he didn’t support Obamacare

Colloquially, of course, such behavior could be described as either ‘schizophrenic,’ ‘conflicted,’ ‘incompatible,’ or ‘contradictory’.

None of those terms are positive or encouraging. And certainly, none are like the sound of

Riches, Wealth, Avarice, Power, Abuse and Vice: An Occupy Wall Street redux

John Adams, 1823–24, Second President of the US. Painting by Gilbert Stuart (1755–1828).

Perhaps you’ve read the previous entry in this blog. If not, I encourage you do so.

Why?

For several reasons, not the least of which are that what you’ll read in the conclusion of this entry speak overwhelmingly to the issue addressed by the protestors.

Following is an entry I made in another forum, the content of which – as I considered it – was worthy of a separate post.

Your thoughtful commentary is encouraged.

I particularly like your earlier remark, and found it quite erudite. To wit, and to clarify, it is this one: “I believe in capitalism,

FaceBook to Congress: We’re going to give users’ phone, address to others

FaceBook is a privately held firm, and much – if not all – of their financial facts are not public record, so any remarks by any firms other than FB themselves are pure speculation. That being observed, it has been remarked that FB does not generate significant revenue by advertising. Their “click through” rate is far less than half the industry norm. So “sharing” (that ‘s a poor euphemism for SELLING) contact information database is the solitary most valuable thing they have. Further complicating matters, FB’s apps have been well-known to be a repository for malware.

Facebook will soon share users’ phone numbers and addresses with 3rd parties

By Brett Michael Dykes – 3:49PM ET

Tuesday, 01March2011

It’s been a while since we’ve had an uproar over Facebook’s handling of its users personal information, so we suppose the time is ripe.

So cue the online outrage: Facebook announced today in a letter to Congress that the social-media platform is moving forward with plans to give