pacman

Another famous Van Gogh painting "Irises" was on the wall of a private office for many years here in my home town. I think the owner bought it for $15 million & sold it for $69 million. I will stand corrected on those figures but I am fairly sure they are right. And given the inflation in the top end of the art market, the current valuation of 300 million for "The Sunflowers" sounds plausible. Expect prices to go much further given the lack of faith in world equity markets. Investors are torn between sitting on cash & blue chip shares. Both are vulnerable & there are few sound places to park money that won't get savaged by inflation & the vagaries of world events. A Van Gogh or a Picasso makes a lot of sense if you have a lazy hundred million or more laying around. As for these scribbles that are currently commanding 100's of thousands of pounds, I think someone is being taken for an enormous ride. If their value stacks up & they continue to appreciate, I am off to buy a set of crayons. I'm sure I can knock up something equally as vapid as that lot of child's rubbish.

Yellow Tail is made to a price for the export market. It isn't something I would recommend but they sell a hell of a lot of it which means someone likes it. And the company have invested in state of the art equipment, they wouldn't want to throw away their business by selling crap. It was once described as doing more damage to Australia's reputation for producing fine wine than anything else. I am incredulous that someone would try a bottle of Yellow Tail & judge all our wines to be the same but that's human nature. As for your choice of Sangria, I have never seen a wine label with that on it before. My understanding is Sangria is a mixed drink of wine, fruit & brandy or some other spirit. I have only ever drank it in Mexican restaurants & that was a long time ago. I googled Yellow Tail Sangria & there's a lot of talk about it being a fruit based fun wine for summer but not a mention of what grape varieties are used. If Penfolds aren't represented in your local liquor outlets, there must be something of quality from Australia. I can offer plenty of names of wineries but it is easier if you post what's available. Plus the grape variety. And I approve of your next choice of wine, the Pinot Noir. Though I can offer no opinion of the label or its reputation. I rarely drink Pinot for two reasons. It is very often too thin on the palate for my liking. Cheap Pinots drink like they have been watered down. The second reason I tend to avoid them is I have learnt over the years to get a good Pinot, one has to pay for them. Here in Oz that means $25 plus. And the ones that get raved about are 50 to 100 dollars on average. I will stick to my 'sunshine in a bottle', the reliable Shiraz, a grape that grows so well in our hot climate. May I suggest you look for a South Australian Shiraz for your next sojourn into Australian wine. McLaren Vale, Barossa Valley, Coonawarra, Clare Valley, Langhorne Creek, any of those names on the label will be a good start. The next guide will be the price. I would be very suspicious if it's too cheap. Cheers Lefty.

That's it then, Philomena to win. Now if I can just get JaiDee to go see it...

Hmmm, it's not looking good is it? I have toned my expectations yet again. So what will win? American Hustle? Gawd, I hope not but it has got the dream cast. 12 Years A Slave, perhaps the highest quality film based on reviews despite the subject matter. Maybe a worthy winner. Wolf on Wall Street? Martin Scorsese makes a good film & Hollywood does like him. If we base it on the percentage of excellent reviews a film gets from the public on the big review website here in Australia the Oscar would be won by Philomena. They are raving about it. I may even go see it myself.

Oops! You know I read my post to ensure I had written nothing that could be taken the wrong way. It must be a cultural thing because there was zero intention to be offensive. How long have we "known" each other anyway? Did you think I suddenly decided to lash out at you over some silly movie? I don't think so. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I don't mind that we're a mile apart in our opinions about Gravity but when you start comparing it poorly with Apollo 13 I am lost for words. As for the "Shame on me" comment, let's see what the Academy decides. The very fact it has even been nominated must account for something. Or is it "shame on them" also... I'm no big fan of Sci-Fi but I do like an entertaining film. And George hasn't made a stinker here either despite what some may think. I think it might be best JaiDee for you not to see Gravity. That way when (or if) it wins the Academy Award for Best Movie you can ponder the wisdom of any future knee-jerk dislikes towards something you don't know about. And you'll never get over your disdain towards "fantasy" films if you don't give the good ones that come along a chance. I do appreciate the danger associated with hyping a film too much. The more one recommends something, the greater the incentive there is for someone not to like it. It's the old "that'll teach'em for trying to tell me what to like" attitude. It's all too common in my experience. Someone here on the forum must have enjoyed Gravity, surely?

I didn't say Argo was a bad film, it was a decent middle-of-the-road action drama with some tension that wasn't properly realised. IMO. As action flicks go it was OK but I was surprised it got the nod for Best Movie Oscar. I feel that way because it won in a year when I had seen better films. Better according to me of course. And I agree with Azza's comments about some of the dialogue in Gravity but given the overall impact of the film, the film rose above that defect. And of course I have seen it, it's the first film in 20 years or more I have seen twice. The second occasion was a different experience to the first, the first time in a small intimate theatre, the second on a megascreen. As to Azza's preference for American Hustle over Gravity there's nothing to say. In the matter of what we like in movies all opinions are valid. And having expressed my belief that Gravity would be a worthy winner I will leave it to the Academy to decide. And there won't be any gnashing of teeth on my part in the case of it losing, the more I read the critics articles about who they think deserves to win, the less sure I am about my choice. I am yet to see Wolf of Wall Street but I must say I am not encouraged by several very lacklustre reviews I have seen for it. A friend has watched a download of it & rates it very good but I need to decide for myself. Three hours in the cinema watching some tawdry anti-heroes, I hope Scorsese has delivered something good. At least there's quite a bit of nudity, that's a bit novel in a big production these days. And that Australian girl Margot Robbie, I don't remember her but she looks good. I agree with JaiDee about Hurt Locker. Since when did that rate being Oscar material? Good but not great like the man said. Good luck watching Captain Philips, I'm interested in what you think. And how interesting is that article you posted the link to. It really appears the good captain had some sort of martyrdom wish to write a book & be a celebrity. He got his fame, I hope the crew deliver the truth. When I was watching it I kept having this feeling nagging at me that if there were pirates around, wouldn't he be taking more evasive action. Even the film gives the impression he's too much of goofy cowboy to be really serious about safe guarding his ship. Maybe I imagined that, it doesn't fit with a film that makes him out as a hero but I will say it anyway & see if anyone agrees with me. Finally, I have said it before & I will say it again - Gravity has nothing in common with anything Sandra Bullock has ever appeared in before. Time to drop the bias & go see a good movie that has taken 700 million dollars at the box office. So far. It will go down in history as one the top money making films of all time & with good reason. American Hustle will never make the top 500. IMO.

We would all have trouble pointing out the Soviet Union on a map, it ceased to exist in 1991. (Sorry, couldn't resist) Of course you meant where the Soviet Union WAS in which case your hypothesis is most likely correct. Just to take this thread even further off-topic (apologies to PDogg), what is equally as bad as thinking Jesus spoke 21st century English is the numbers of people who want to deny he even existed. I don't care about the next persons religion but that is just absurd. There is so much documented evidence about him that has survived down the centuries that one would have to a belligerent fool to suggest he's a figment of the Christian church. Even the Muslims proclaimed him as one of their most important prophets. And what about his family? We know about Mary & Joseph but when Saint Paul (who was centuries away from being made a Saint) was proselytising Christianity in Turkey & offended one of the sects, he was recalled back to Palestine to confront his peers. Guess who was the head honcho? James, the brother of Jesus. Damn, I lived a long time before I knew about him.

Is Gravity showing in Thailand yet? I still think it deserves the Best Movie Oscar next month but I'm not as confident as I was. There's speculation about American Hustle & 12 Years A Slave with parties divided about which one they think might win it. There's hardly any mention that Gravity is even in the race. I haven't seen 12 Years A Slave but from reports about all the violence & how many beatings & torture scenes are in it, I would be surprised if the Academy honoured a film that portrays that time in US history in such a negative fashion. But maybe it's really well done & they see merit in giving it recognition. As for American Hustle, you can knock me over with a feather if that gets the win. That would make two years in a row that an average film took out the top prize after Argo's surprise win last year. American Hustle does have a good cast who turn in fine performances but the plot was convoluted & much of the picture wanders along aimlessly trying to find its raison d'etre. OK, that's an exaggeration but for an Oscar frontrunner, I have never seen more negative comments about a movie as there are for American Hustle here on our local movie review site. And some of them are vicious, people absolutely hate it. So I stick by my prediction but I wouldn't put one dollar on it. Gravity has the aura of a prize winning film but who knows what the voters are looking for.

Isn't there any appetite in the US for news outside America? Riots in Thailand & Ukraine are all over the news coverage here in Australia. Plus the ongoing fighting in Syria & Egypt & daily reports of the cold weather in Europe & the US. Bloody hell it must be cold in the US. I guess if Americans don't care for what happens outside their country that would explain the question asked by an American lady to an Australian visitor I just read about on another forum. In all seriousness this lady asked her guest: "Do you have modern things in Australia?"

Of course we do & I also know you care less about Justin & his boorish behaviour. I am just so pissed off with the stupidity of the kid who literally has the world at his feet that I took the opportunity to unload. I know I was way off topic but it felt good to let him have it. Metaphorically of course.

The clue that connects Ben Bernanke & Asian prosperity lay in the words "hot money". All that liquidity being pumped into the US economy is chasing a return & the beneficiaries of all that largesse, the big banks & hedge funds don't care where it comes from, they park it wherever someone is paying an interest rate better than they can get at home. Once tapering starts, the slow turning off of the taps in other words, that investment money will dry up & all those projects they are currently funding will wither & die. It's not as cut & dried as that but as I only have a rudimentary idea of the cause & effect, that's all the explanation I can offer. By far the biggest worry in the region is Indonesia. Their new leader is widely expected to be the Mayor of Jakarta who is a strong nationalist who doesn't like the west, particularly Australia & he will be inheriting a slowing economy & will need some distractions to shift the population's attention away from the government's failings. That does not bode well for Australia, this guy may well prove to be our worst nightmare. If Marty Natalegawa, the very popular Foreign Minister of Indonesia is removed & replaced by an Islamic nationalist, the two countries will find themselves at loggerheads from day one. This has so much potential to escalate that it could get nasty very quickly. Thailand will be very small beer compared to how this could play out. With US troops now permanently stationed in Darwin in anticipation of such an event, I think this is going to take a lot of diplomacy to placate.

What? More than the fact that he's a completely irresponsible idiot who is in the process of destroying his career with his poorly thought out antics & the company he is keeping. That's about all I know, it's about all anyone needs to know. Oh yeah, his mother is asking for people to pray for him & his father says he supports him completely. Of course he does when the kid has made the family rich. And only a blind fool would think their son did a good job by going to a strip club, throwing 75,000 dollars at the girls, got himself pissed & was arrested for racing a rented Lamborghini through suburban streets. There's a great career path for you, straight down. There's a lot of noise coming from family groups all wanting his music & shows banned. No amount of popularity will save him once he crosses into criminal territory. His fan base are still declaring their love but they are a dwindling lot who will soon find another messiah to follow.

Interesting film Captain Philips, it's well done but strangely underwhelming. Go & see it by all means, I know others rate it more highly than I do. I don't dislike it & lots of it is excellent but there's something predictable about how it all plays out. And as for the outcry about how Tom Hanks was robbed when he wasn't nominated for an Oscar, the Academy showed they judge roles on their merits & not on reputation. I can't quite decide whether Tom tried too hard or he just walked through his role. At no time did I feel I was watching a great performance. Tom is altogether better in Saving Mr Banks where he plays Walt Disney. Here in Australia, the film critics I take notice of have all said the movie Capt Philips should have been is the Danish film A Hijacking, also about a ship being taken hostage by Somali pirates. I haven't seen it but they rate it as far better than the Hollywood version. I see Rotten Tomatoes rate it 95% versus Capt Philips 93%. Not enough difference to worry about but going on reviews I have read, the Danish film comes out far ahead.

Reading this I realise we have more in common than we have differences. I never look for a conspiracy "automatically", I don't actively seek them at all. I harbour suspicions about all sorts of things because of the problem we both have with hearing from EVERY source. I'm sure you didn't mean "every source" literally, but until all the possibilities are eliminated, sometimes it's hard to rule out the "unlikely". And it is this area of unlikely events that divides us. I can take on board official explanations at face value. They are nearly always true & it simplifies one's life to just accept them. But when the party delivering the explanation has a vested interest in the outcome & they offer a story full of holes, that's when I react & start to question what I am meant to believe. And some people will spit their dummy when doubts are raised. I particularly find it with Americans, they get very defensive & want to change my mind by any means. Some of them have gone right off the deep end over my opinions, there's several forums I will never return to because of certain posters who can't wait to take me to task. It's not that I can't defend myself, it is just so time consuming fighting with morons. I don't know Alex Jones, I've never heard of him but he is just asking for criticism if he is waving the flag for the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. I've never met any of that crowd & I never want to. What an exhausting bunch they would be. That describes my response - knee-jerk speculation. I only had that post to refer to & now I find out it was propaganda written by conspiracy theorists. I will read the 7 pages in that link later & comment then. The conclusion I drew was based on what I knew. I know I shouldn't have come out with an opinion before acquainting myself with the facts but I was "encouraged" to & gave JD fodder for his strong reply. You got me there JD, I had no idea of what the brothers, the mother & the others thought. If I did I would have written something different but you were pushing for a reaction. I hope I didn't disappoint you when I wrote: " I am not in possession of all the facts, I haven't read the 7 page article you referred to earlier but the above synopsis plus knowing just who he was upsetting all point to the possibility of foul play. I am not subscribing to a conspiracy theory, I am not saying he was murdered, all I am suggesting is that deliberate interference is possible." It may not be correct but I don't think I was being unfair either.

Willie, I watched several documentaries about 9/11 & Building 7's demise did trouble me. It may have been on this forum some time back where I did get a "reasonable" explanation & haven't been bothered by it since. Something to do with broken gas lines from the World Trade buildings causing a giant explosion. If you think about it from the POV of someone planning to bring down the towers (it sounds silly just writing it), they would want to do less to draw attention to their scheme, not more by rigging an unrelated building with explosives so that collapses too. The fact that it happened is something no one could have foreseen. If there was a plot, an extra building collapsing was totally unnecessary to their plans. I have thought about it from every angle & I can't see any reason why Building 7 would have been sacrificed for no extra gain. I think the "truthers" are exactly the people who give conspiracy theorists a bad name. And for the record I have never seriously doubted the official story about 9/11. My interest was piqued when some strange stories were discussed but on review, I quickly dismissed them. I get annoyed that every time someone raises a suspicion about something they are labelled a "conspiracy theorist" which everyone knows is code for a special kind of idiot. I would have thought that people with a questioning mind were a good thing, apparently not.

I can't speak for Lefty but I am sure you won't mind me commenting. It does appear you are angling for a debate with anyone who has the temerity to raise their hand to suggest his death was no accident. That hand raiser? That would be me. I am not in possession of all the facts, I haven't read the 7 page article you referred to earlier but the above synopsis plus knowing just who he was upsetting all point to the possibility of foul play. I am not subscribing to a conspiracy theory, I am not saying he was murdered, all I am suggesting is that deliberate interference is possible. The only thing I can base that on is the photo of his car. Fuel tanks don't easily explode & you won't find pictures of cars that have run into a tree with the back end of the car blown up. And the comment about the paint not having time to bubble is very telling. It isn't proof, it could have happened but on the balance of probability, that car was blown up by a bomb attached to the fuel tank. I love how we can read & process the same information & arrive at different answers. Either I am way too cynical or you are way too trusting. I suspect the answer lies somewhere between.

Azza, a carbon tax, an emissions trading scheme, cap'n'trade, these are all mechanisms for future governments to raise the taxes needed to balance the books by hitting the wealthy ... oops, the big polluters who have to pay for destroying the planet. Except they will go right on doing what they are doing except they will transfer large sums to the government. The theory is they will find ways to reduce their carbon output, thus saving on the tax they pay. Reduced solar activity has nothing to with it & if a mini ice age does start, they will blame it on climate change claiming not enough was done earlier. A good reason to increase the tax in other words.

Penfolds make wines from cheap to expensive. Their flag bearer, The Grange is retailing for $800 a bottle for its latest vintage. It did sell for years on release for $500 or so until the wealthy Chinese discovered it, now they demand that it is supplied at all their important functions. Big face as the Thais say. It's bad enough they have forced the prices up & taken the bulk of the production (I hear it retails for about $2000 a bottle in China) but the Chinese palate is so unsophisticated that to drink it, many of them are mixing it with Coca Cola. Words cannot express my outrage. Back to Penfolds for us mortals, Lefty, see if you can locate their Koonunga Hill or Rawsons Retreat. They are made for a wide market at affordable prices. They come in several grape varieties & depending on which vintage, they range from good to very good. If you come across Penfolds Bin 28, Bin 128, Bin 407, Bin 389 or Bin 707, any of those will be good drinking indeed. Those last two, the 389 & the 707 will be expensive but you may come across a vendor with old stock who doesn't know their true worth. A long shot but I have heard it happening several times over the years. Australian wine in a foreign country where the retailer had no idea what the stuff was worth today. 10 to 20 year old stock that still had its original price on it. Needless to say, the whole supply was bought quicker than the guy could google it.

The fate of the unwanted male offspring of Issan girls who come home from Bangkok or Pattaya expecting a farang baby is to turn them into ladyboys. The abundance of cheap Chinese hormones makes it easy & as the family knows, no one wants a half farang male in the village. This way they can turn them into money making machines who can be relied upon to send as much money home as their daughters they send off to work. Plus they have the advantage of not being able to fall pregnant nor are they are going to be whisked off to farangland to marry one of their many boyfriends. They got that last bit wrong, I'm not sure what they make of those foreigners wanting to do something as weird as tying the knot with their katoey child but then again, Issan farmers have always been at a loss trying to figure out how farangs think. However in Cambodia with all the loss of life after Pol Pot's reign of terror, they might actually be very glad to welcome a child of any background into the world. They may value having a son to help the family business. And force feeding them hormones to make them less male may never cross their mind. I have made some assumptions there but the difference between Thailand & Cambodia as I see it is the Thais have too many unwanted children in the poor north & stories of wealthy katoeys have travelled to every corner of Issan. From being an unwelcome burden, farang babies can help make the family respectable. The Cambodians view these children differently, hence they are allowed to grow up normally. As for all the katoeys who are 100% Thai, the other half, I don't know if there is a great difference between the pro-rata numbers from each country. Evidence of the existence of ladyboys in Thailand goes back 100's of years. The difference is these days they can develop like real women with the presence of the cheap hormones. Every village pharmacy has them in huge quantities. Quite an odd product line for a village pharmacy in my opinion but they are a big seller. Whether one should laugh or cry about that is all in the eye of the beholder.

Socrates. The voice of wisdom & I agree completely with him. Thinking we know something when one is only speculating is a sure way to make oneself foolish. But to wonder if something might have been possible, that is altogether different. I have learnt not to jump to conclusions but I have lived long enough to know that not everything is as it seems.

Ha Ha Ha. OMG, I will never forget that night either khun Lefty. The choice of restaurant was yours & a damn fine establishment it was. I rated it the best Indian restaurant I had been to in Pattaya. Better even than that place upstairs in Walking Street which had all the buzz. Obviously the Indian & Muslim community knew better because we had the last table available. Our host welcomed us warmly & surprised us with his offer of a free taste of lambs brains. I had eaten brains on two occasions before in my life but never did I expect them to be used in a curry dish. There was nothing else to say but accept his sincere offer. They were very nice indeed. Knowing how rich they are in cholesterol I haven't rushed back to order more but I was most surprised at how tasty they were. I don't remember feeding you but if I was being extra polite, maybe I did. I dunno, it has all disappeared in the mists of time. And the wine we drank that night was several grades better than Yellowtail but that isn't the point either. It was a Penfolds from memory, one of those great Australian shiraz's. Sunshine in a bottle as we refer to them here. I just had some this evening, bloody lovely it was. Yellowtail is made in large quantities for the export market, it is very drinkable. Whether it would pass muster for a bunch of wine snobs is another story, perhaps if they didn't see the label but it doesn't matter. All I can say is it is a good selection if you enjoyed it. If you didn't, try something else. I don't know what Australian wine you have available locally & what prices you are paying. Only then could I offer an opinion on what you might like or what you should purchase. My Australian friends who have spent time in the US complained that the Californian reds they drank were for the most part overly ripe. They considered the wines to be "stewed". If only one had made the comment I would think they made a bad choice but there were several people making the same observation. I don't know if that is a style the locals like or if they had an unfortunate run. I expect Americans can buy Australian wines at a better price than what I discovered them to be selling for in Norway. A popular Australian wine, Jacobs Creek that was selling for about $6 a bottle here was a bargain there for $125. I couldn't believe it. Equally we have our prices being undercut by wines from Chile. I was praising a red wine of theirs as being equal to some very good reds made in Australia. My friend who was offering it had bought it online for $9 a bottle. Unbelievable. There's always someone undercutting the price. Thanks for the memory Lefty, it was a very fine meal. And I enjoyed the other nights too whether I fed you or not. (I didn't, did I?)

I am interested in reading the link you posted but I don't have time to do anything at the moment. JD, I want to point out that because I favour a conspiracy over LHO acting alone, it doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist. The reason why the JFK assassination is the mother lode of all conspiracy theories, is because I along with millions of other people reject the official story. And it wasn't something I did as a knee jerk reaction, it was after considering the weight of evidence that casts enormous doubt on what we are supposed to believe. If Michael Hastings had made powerful enemies it does increase the chance that his death wasn't an accident but that comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement of any theory. It is a perfectly reasonable assumption based on my understanding of how far some people will go to silence their enemies. But on balance, he most likely killed himself driving too fast while affected by drugs and/or alcohol. The world is not divided into theory believers & non-believers. It is absurd to suggest that a believer sees a conspiracy in every unexplained event & a non-believer accepts whatever the police or the government tells them. Most rational people make their own minds up based on the evidence available plus the bias of the journalist presenting it. And a journo's bias can turn a lot of people off, I for one don't place much faith in the words of someone trying to beat up a story. But a well written story can be very persuasive. The last paragraph doesn't excuse the serial theorists, some people just want to believe the worst every single time. And there is so much material for them to work with I wonder if they become addicted to the visceral thrill of getting their minds around the next scandal. While I love the melodrama of a good conspiracy, it will not phase me at all should those we discussed turn out to be fantasy. With some of them I will admit to surprise but it would still not stop me being a cynic or to view future odd events with similar scepticism. I am not suggesting that is how we should all think but I wouldn't want to be any other way. Cheers.

Psychologists have conducted experiments on how people perceive the truth with very disturbing results. I won't go into the detail, it's too long & boring, but when I first read about the outcomes, I despaired of the jury system we use in the west to arrive at the truth. e.g. the jury in the OJ Simpson trial acquitted a murderer based on a leather glove worn by the killer that didn't fit OJ. The prosecuting team were too slow in showing that it shrank because it had been soaked in blood. It didn't matter to the jury, they had their truth. And every piece of compelling evidence was ignored because it meant they had to let go of 'their truth'. JD & I are in lock step when it comes to 9/11 or Michael Hastings or the woman in Hawaii. I don't see beyond what we know & I am not looking to argue anything different. And I have only surmised there may be more to RFK, MLK, etc. Being a cynic doesn't make someone believe everything suspicious must be a conspiracy. But there are so many holes in the official story of JFK's death that they deserve consideration. That doesn't mean I know more than the next person, it just means that some inner bell has been rung that something isn't right. And I reserve the right to question the details that don't fit & would never arise if it was a simple case of Oswald taking his gun & shooting the President. If it is that simple why have all those people come forward to say we have been lied to? And why the conflicting evidence & the subterfuge? And why were the doctors ordered never to speak about their examination of the body? And why was the first rifle removed from the Book Depository a Mauzer? A heavier calibre weapon than fired by Oswald that seemed to disappear from the story? And why weren't eye witnesses called to the Warren Commission? They were all ready to testify but those asked only agreed with the official line. The ones not asked had another story to tell. Wouldn't you think they would want to hear it? Then there's film of people running & pointing towards the grassy knoll. Were they all suddenly possessed with madness that they couldn't distinguish between gunshots fired from 90 yards away & those fired closer? As to this being impossible because no bullet was found, all I will say to that, who would have been in charge of finding it? The very people organising the cover up. But the one action that we interpret differently is the fate of Oswald himself. If he was going to implicate anyone else, he had to be killed. Otherwise he is found guilty & hangs. And that would have been the closure America needed. But he was never allowed to speak. Jack Ruby's motivation is transparently weak. Here's a small time mobster who ran strip clubs & consorted with hookers suddenly worried about Mrs Kennedy's welfare. To that I say "bullshit". And when he can be seen at the police station pushing forward when Oswald is first brought in, his accidental meeting the next day looks very staged to me. While the rest of America is waiting with baited breath to hear Oswald's reasons & why he could have wanted to kill such a popular person, here's a guy on a mission to silence him. It was a contract hit, pure & simple. I just cannot see someone like Ruby caring about anyone so much that he was prepared to go to jail just to spare their blushes. And to go to jail for someone who lived a far better life than he, who he had never met & was never likely to. And his movements on the morning where he made a phone call & went to a bookies office, that is all beside the point. He had a rendezvous & he didn't need to hurry. Perhaps the phone call was to find out how soon he was wanted? 10 minutes? No worries, I have time to collect on my bet. Unless some secret report is released, we are never going to have that hard evidence the doubters demand but I don't care. I can't say who wanted JFK dead, I can guess, but what I am sure of, he was targeted for assassination.

Eats pizza with a fork! Outrageous, that sure puts Rob Ford into perspective. Arch, even you would take the pizza eater ahead of a crackhead. I think.