WHY Sirhan Sirhan shot Bobby Kennedy: he saw him as a Zionist

This is an update and condensing of an old blog post about Robert F. Kennedy's assassination by Sirhan Sirhan. The original was written for the 50th anniversary of the assassination, and its truckload of conspiracy theorists. The update is partially for them, and partially for Democrats attempting to explain away the reality of Sirhan and his mindset.

See below, halfway down, on WHY Sirhan Sirhan shot RFK, his mental status at the time and afterward and more, that refute not only conspiracy theories but modern Democrats attempts to explain away the assassination, which was ultimately caused by Sirhan perceiving Kennedy as a Zionist.

It involves setting aside the high-grade heroin of Camelot, that spilled over from Jack to Bobby, as well as looking at the reality of Sirhan Sirhan, too.

But, this is ultimately about Bobby, not Jack. 

Let's dig in.

First, Bobby's 1968 political future.

Per this Politico piece, Bobby had about zero chance at the nomination. It reminds us only 14 states had primaries back then. The other states, through caucuses and conventions, were still largely controlled by "machines." LBJ made sure they stayed Humphrey.

Almost three-fifths of conventional delegates were selected by county committeemen, state party officers and elected officials, and those officials were squarely behind Humphrey.

In fact, that's why some were wondering if LBJ wasn't going to parachute into Chicago and elbow aside Hubert. And, had Bobby not been shot, he might just have done it.

And, on the ballot, Humphrey took two-thirds, not three-fifths, of the vote. Sure, some of Bobby's delegates went to him, instead of Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, or somebody else. But, Bobby wasn't going to win, period.

(Also, there's the myth that Eugene McCarthy couldn't win Democratic primaries in minority-heavy states, which itself isn't so true, as the results show him beating Bobby in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Yes, it's true Bobby contested none of those, but that may be because he knew he couldn't win. And, Bobby was FROM Massachusetts, too. At the same time, Wiki repeats the Camelot 2.0 myth, claiming the antiwar movement was kaput with Bobby's death, which would be news indeed to McCarthy and many of his backers. [Note: He never would have released pledged delegates to Bobby, anyway. Never.])

At the same time, showing Wiki's problems with lack of editing uniformity, but further undercutting conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio, in his first major campaign speech in 1968, per Wiki's piece on his campaign, he admitted:

"I was involved in many of the early decisions on Vietnam, decisions which helped set us on our present path."

Original quote from this piece, among others. Not quite either Camelot 1.0 OR 2.0. (In my original,  DiEugenio accused me of trolling in another comment to one of his pieces. If telling the truth is trolling, so be it. And, I'll get to that in a bit.)

The Politico piece also notes that if Bobby had somehow pulled off a miracle in Chicago, he might have had almost as much a George Wallace problem as Humphrey did. (Part of Camelot 2.0 is claiming "Clean Gene" was a racist; his eventual Republicanism made that smear easier. The truth? McCarthy lost the California primary by honesty; he said in a debate he wanted subsidized housing moved from Los Angeles [Watts, etc] out to the suburbs, and Kennedy VIRULENTLY opposed that.)

Now, the Ambassador Hotel.

Sirhan Sirhan has gun in hand. He was in the right position to fire the fatal shot. He admitted the shooting. He described why he shot Bobby — over his support for Israel. (His journals are quite explicit as to all of this, too.)

Sirhan Sirhan?

Or, some lame conspiracy, or set of them, as, although less wild than with JFK, multiple RFK assassination conspiracy theories exist.

Occam's razor.

Oh, and I don't give a fuck that RFK Jr. claims that Sirhan Sirhan didn't do it. Bobby Jr. is an antivaxxer in particular and a believer in conspiracy theories in general himself. RFK Jr's new book, which is a total teh suck of high-octane mendaciousness, basically claims the CIA did it.

And, some of the specific claims, like Sirhan Sirhan was given post-hypnotic suggestions and other stuff? Crazier yet. And lies. He was not hypnotized. Nor was he mentally ill and he was never adjudged to be mentally ill.

That said? Per an essay by Dan Moldea, Sirhan Sirhan had fired about 400 rounds with the revolver before he shot Bobby. Per Jeff Greenfield, what set him off was seeing Bobby wearing a yarmulke at an Israeli Independence Day celebration. And, that's not alt-history. The Jewish Press confirms it, complete with photo.

Original AP photo, May 26, 1968. Just a week before
his assassination on June 6, 1968, Senator Kennedy,
then a candidate for the presidency, wears a traditional
yarmulke in his appearance before a Portland synagogue.

Anybody who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories about Bobby's death but has read much of Sirhan Sirhan's numerous parole hearings and other things will realize he'll say whatever he thinks will get him parole. (At other parole hearings, he's admitted shooting Bobby, while blaming booze or something.)

Wouldn't you?

And, the conspiracy theories, including but not limited to Manchurian candidate ones with hypnotic suggestion, have even less credibility than the JFK ones.

Even more interesting, but perhaps because it would be self-undercutting, no conspiracy theorist that I know of has proposed the most reasonable one.

And that is that some Palestinian organization — whether PLO, PFLP, or someone else — put Sirhan up to it. The undercutting would be that that would still mean he did it, unless combined with one of the actual conspiracy theories like a two-gunman idea.

Beyond that? In one of the very few true things he's uttered from prison, Sirhan Sirhan (Wiki) himself said he shot Bobby because he was a Zionist. Also, Sirhan Sirhan was NOT mentally ill. He was never legally adjudicated as such, and that's otherwise a Democrat lie. 

And, there's at least one #BlueAnon Democratic snowflake on Twitter, a political candidate, promoting THAT bullshit, and it's just as much bullshit as the conspiracy theories.

One question I still really have unanswered is, per the writings of James Bamford, and per James Ennes and others, how much did Bobby know about the truth of Israel's attack on the Liberty? And, a related unanswered question is, per my favorite JFK assassination conspiracy theory (because I invented it), of Mossad whacking Jack, based on historical background — how much did Bobby know about Jack's fights with Ben-Gurion, then Eshkol, over Dimona? (Per the reality, Israel agreed to inspections, which LBJ continued, though with no vigor. I'm guessing Israel hid enough stuff on the inspections, especially with advance notice. Document 46 at the end of this National Security Archive piece that was the basis for my conspiracy theory says some sort of handwaving did indeed appear to be done.)

Third party and other political news, Aug. 30

Jill Stein remains on the Wisconsin ballot for now. But Democraps, after an initial legal screw-up, said they'll be back.

==

She and Claudia de la Cruz both, among others, beat back a Democrap attempt in Georgia.

==

While I don't advocate blocking anybody, as an individual independent, or as a minority party, from the ballot? Ballot overload, at least in "jungle" primaries," can decrease voter participation. The research is restricted to that, and specifically to Louisiana's infamous jungle primary. The researchers promise to broaden their scope.

==

Brainworm Bobby dropped out last week. And, yes, chuds, per Mr. Spock's "a difference that makes no difference IS no difference," his "suspension" IS dropping out. As I posted on Independent Political Report, a Google search of "Robert F. Kennedy" plus "dropped out" draws hits from everybody from USA Today to Fox News.

Related? There's someone probably almost as nutbar as Nuña the Nutter (a beaner!) on IPR, maybe as bad or worse, and definite much worse on logarrhea.

Science roundup: "Hobbit" evolution, African wave migration, origins of life, creationists

Carl Zimmer reports on discovery of 700,000-year-old teeth and an arm bone from Homo floresiensis, our "human hobbit" evolutionary kin. The biggest takeaway? They're even tinier than previously thought, as in 3 feet, 4 inches, or 1 meter or so. They would officially be "dwarves" in modern human height classification.

How they evolved? Under as much dispute as ever.

 ==

Indirectly related? Humans of Homo sapiens left Africa in multiple waves, it appears, starting 250K years ago. This, in turn, will surely offer new insight on Neanderthals and Denisovans, their interactions with Homo sapiens and more. It may also offer more insight on climate and human migration and related issues.

==

Zimmer also interviewed Sara Walker for her controversial "assembly theory" of the origins of life. And, yes, controversial. Rosemary Redfield, among people who blasted the "arsenicgate" claims about Mars, basically calls it dreck. (And, indeed, Zimmer, then at Slate, had one of the biggest callouts, citing Redfield extensively.)

Per friend Massimo Pigliucci, and per less harsh critics, the idea that you can number the complexity of molecules and use that number as part of a sharp cutoff between life and non-life? Sounds like another version of the demarcation problem, which itself is connected partially to the old sorites paradox. I also venture that it comes close to circular reasoning.

==

And, controversial but honest while lying? That's my summation of friend Paul Braterman's review of an article by two young-earth creationists. Rather than attack evolution by natural selection directly, like most YACs, who use the word "Darwinianism," of course (has any fundagelical ever called general relativity "Einsteinianism"?) attack its methodological presuppositions.

Earth Overshoot Day — the issue and various partial answers

Many capitalist Americans have heard of "tax-free day," the date in which the average American (these things are always done by the mean, not the median, so of limited insight) has earned enough to be free and clear of government obligations.

Far fewer have heard of Earth Overshoot Day, the day in which the planet "goes into debt" for the rest of the year of capitalist Americans and other world island citizens raping it, not just raping it "at par," but beyond what is sustainable. We hit that last month.

As the link notes, climate change is but one symptom of broader Earth Overshoot. But, it gets even less attention. Usually, far less.

Per that chart, we've been in overshoot for more than 50 years, and it has generally continued to worsen until about the time of the Great Recession.

Many organizations pushing more activism on the issue have focused on population growth. Regardless of any ethical issues on forced limits on population growth (you, China) and how that affects longer-term society to boot, such activists are all wet.

Yes, we're a bit over 8 billion, but the UN has indicated we'll probably peak somewhere between 9 and 10 billion, and won't get close to 11 billion. That means limiting population growth is not really a part of the solution, with the exception of one country, possibly two. More below. Consumption is. If you won't be honest about that as the bottom line, you're not being honest.

It should also be noted that, while things haven't gotten better, contra the natalists, they haven't gotten worse since the Western world's Great Recession, even as population has continued to rise, even soar, in places like India and sub-Saharan Africa.

The one country? India, especially as long as its Hindutva-fascist leadership sees "more people" as a key part of policy. The possible second country? Pakistan, if triggered by Indian birtherism.

On consumption and the developing world? It is the developed world's responsibility, just as it is with the Earth Overshoot subset of climate change, to help the developing world avoid our mistakes and past history — help that must be financial as well as technological, and "open" — untariffed, unburdened by intellectual property restrictions or pseudo-restrictions, etc.

Beyond that, touting antinatalism as "the" answer looks racist, even if not meant that way. And, there's a history of White environmentalism that's racist that's not just "history." It's still out there today.

Not just a selfie but a camera-selfie!

Saw the photo at left as the first photo in a slider of pix from a visit to Rocky Mountain National Park, in a post at Reddit's r/nationalpark.

I said:

A camera-selfie for first photo? OK.

The OP responded:

That’s right! I’ll make sure to do that for the next post just for you bud

If he thought he was owning me, by votes, he wasn't.

That said, OP Vince McMan, show me you're a stereotypical junior Reddit chud by having the "18+" symbol on your account. (God, the amount of doorknobs with that ...) And, add to that stereotyping set-up by having that as your user name.

Camera-selfies of a big, long "zoom," and zoom in square quotes for a reason?

Similar to big-ass belt buckles here in Tex-ass. It's called "projection," and I don't mean in the videos sense.

And, since I not only live in Tex-ass but get paid to shoot photos here in Tex-ass, I can say that!

I can also add, without taking photos of it, that my "zoom" is at least as big as yours.

Capitalism for Capitol Reef! Big Pharma for Big Bend!

Author photo, Santa Elena Canyon, Big Bend National Park

What could go wrong with this? 

At r/NationalPark, it was noted that the Lilly Endowment is giving $100 million to the National Park Service's charity, the National Park Foundation.

As I said?

Yep, our suck-ass American health care system is going to try to fix our ailing national parks!

Besides the parent company ripping Americans off on medications? The endowment is big on religion-related donations. And, per one comment at that subreddit, has also contributed to climate denialists, the Hudson Institute and the Federalist Society.

Plus, a gift this size, one-tenth of the foundation's entire fund drive, could lead to general big-swinging-dick-itis.

And, the National Parks Foundation, while started with the best of purposes, has itself become more and more neoliberalized. Its partnership with the NPS on that organization's centennial, courtesy of Dear Leader and his private-sector Interior boss, Sally Jewell, was proof positive of that. And, related to this story, insurance giant Humana was part of that. (And, beyond that story, before running REI, Jewell had a "dirty" background including time at eXXXon, or, to be precise, pre-merger Mobil, which is bad enough. She was also a "drill, baby, drill" person. No wonder she was "drill, baby, drill" — had old bosses to satisfy.

Celebrate 100 years in the national parks! Don't injure yourself if you can't afford one of our insurance plans, or one of our opioid medications.

And, don't forget to tip jar the whores at places like NPCA, the National Parks Conservation Association. Per that link, they're sellouts as well as whores for touting national recreation areas that violate NPS' Organic Act.

Glenn Loury is still a Player

Even more than as I noted in my original Goodreads review, that's the bottom line of his autobiography.

Late Admissions: Confessions of a Black Conservative by Glenn C. Loury
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

A Player is trying to play you. Period, bottom line and end of story.

Per a theme of Loury’s off and on throughout the book, I think that’s the best take on this. Yes, that's highly skeptical. It may even be a bit cynical, but it's skeptical far ahead of cynical. To Loury's fanbois and fangirrls who either loved or hated this book, I don't care if you think it's all cynicism, no skepticism.

Let's dive in, starting with stuff that presented itself right away.

First, per Loury’s hints in his intro that he thinks radical honesty will make him more likeable as well as more believable? Tosh. Ditto on implied claims that if he’s more believable on his personal story, then he’ll be more believable on his economic and political stances. Tosh again.

Second, per the front half of the inner dust cover flap, any swing to the left was relatively short and narrowly focused.

Third, no index.

Fourth, Hillsdale College early 1980s may not have been as big as today as far as conservative world imprint, but it wasn’t small. Writing for them? Loury had to know what he was doing. As far as his musings about a John Conyers and police brutality, he implies that Conyers was thinking about this to the exclusion of thinking about black family problems. With both this and Hillsdale, Loury had to know that white conservatives would use this as ammunition for “let’s move beyond affirmative action.” He either DID know this and decided to, early on, be a “Player,” or else he didn’t think about it and became a Sucker.

At this point, I am pretty sure the book won’t go above 3 stars. So, where within that will it land?

Well, next, we hit his cheap, caricatured and dishonest — to shove that word in his face — strawmanning of liberals on the 170s-180s pages. And, by the time I’m at 200, I am pretty sure this is no more than 2 stars. And, I'm thinking this is another part of being a Player.

And then, shortly after page 300, comes Charles Murray and The Bell Curve. Now, I know that Loury is no more a cognitive scientist or an evolutionary biologist than is, say, Andrew Sullivan, to cite another prominent personage who has both loathsome and stupid views on the book and the ideas behind it. And, contra Loury, it doesn’t matter that Herrnstein had died by the time the book came out. He was wrong, too. BOTH authors got money from the racist Pioneer Fund, like Frank Miele. Add in that Murray then moved from racism to sexism. Interestingly (perhaps in part because, reading between the lines in this book, Loury isn't very enlightened on feminism, either), he doesn't even mention this to try to explain it away. Surely, he knows this, too.

Contra Sully, though, Loury is an academic in a not totally distant field, and even less distant as far as some of his lectures and such. He’s surely read some of the material before, during and after The Bell Curve about the sociological influences on IQ even when not motivated by racism, the problems with “g” and more, problems detailed here. In addition, the fact that AEI, the American Enterprise Institute, simply threw aside his concerns, and basically just went on without him after he left, apparently opened no eyes in his soul.

To put it more bluntly than in my original review? Loury's lying to himself, lying to his readers, or lying to both. They're not mutually exclusive.

There’s also the fact that this connects to broader stupidity in Evolutionary Psychology, with some of its biggest stupidity detailed here.

There’s other lies by omission. Like overlooking that already by the late 1960s, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was ignoring LBJ’s dictum that you don’t ask someone to run, but just walk, after removing the chains. Or, talking about equity once or twice, then ignoring the multigenerational transfer effects of racial differences in equity.

As for the radical honesty, one more time? Tying his conclusion to his introduction, it seems like he’s selling the idea of being an intellectual Player. I think his puffed up move from the right to the left was part of being a Player. And, other than mass incarceration, was it really much of a move? Nowhere in the book does Loury dive into the intersection of race and class, other than his personal anecdotes revealing how part of his being a Player in various ways involved forms of intersectional class-shifting. In light of that, I note that he doesn’t mention Isabel Wilkerson or her book Caste.

That said, he’s not 100 percent wrong on everything. Nor is new bosom buddy McWhorter. I don’t have a lot of use for Ta-Nehisi Coates nor for the 1619 Project’s Nikole Hannah-Jones. I have about none for Ibrahim Kendi and even less for Robin DiAngelo as a white race hustler.

Oherwise, as for his alleged move to the “left”? There’s NO Black leftists he mentions. Yes, Black liberals. No Black leftists, like, say, an Adolph Reed.

There’s zero engagement with Critical Race Theory, like Derrick Bell and his "Silent Covenants." Loury mentions some other Bell in the book, but since no index, I can’t remember who. So, on his "pivot to the left," at least on the depth of his pivot, as with the Murray angle, Loury would again seem to be lying.

Again — and assuming the lying is conscious — to whom first? Himself? (Which makes the lying at some point subconscious.) Black conservatives? White conservatives? All of the above? Black and/or White liberals? Is he even trying to lie beyond liberals to leftists?

So, why? Is Loury trafficking in the idea of being a Player due to laws of supply and demand on black conservatives? Was his shift allegedly to the “left” to build up Black cred when he moved back right?

View all my reviews

Texas Supremes OK 15th Court of Appeals

Another legal fix is sort-of in. Despite the Tex-ass Constitution seeming to indicate otherwise, the Texas Supreme Court says that Strangeabbott's new 15th Court of Appeals is constitutional. Full opinion here; court rejects that the "statewide" is unconstitutional, saying the constitution's "divided" for appeals courts just means more than one. Interestingly, tho the ruling came out around midday Friday, as of Sunday, the Trib and the Snooze had nothing. Especially bad on the Morning News, as the suit about the court's validity originated with the Dallas County Sheriff's Office.

As for Strangeabbott appointing judges, the Supremes said it was too close to the election to undo that. Interesting that NObody apparently challenged that angle legally, with a mandamus or other filing, at the time Abbott signed the bill into law, as it was not too late then.

As for the likes of Steve Vladeck saying this needed a constitutional amendment, per this background story, that's not the hill the DCSO died on.

Per that backgrounder, we'll see if there's any more filings on that angle after this court hears its first cases.

And, per Vladeck's comments elsewhere, maybe he needs to shit or get off the pot on "court-packing" at places like the Supreme Court. Once again, a Democrat who needs to grow a pair.

Texas Progressives talk McCraw, Paxton, Palestine and legal "fixes"

Steve McCraw is retiring from running DPS rather than fess up to everything it got wrong at Uvalde. Yeah, yeah, per the story, and his letter, there are other stated reasons. But the timing stinks and sure looks like that. No, really. The Observer covers McCraw's reinstatement of Ranger Ryan Kindell, the DPS trooper he fired over Uvalde a year ago. The Observer notes that the reinstatement quashed Kindell's appeal hearing AND came just three weeks before McCraw's announcement.

Ken Paxton, alleged Hispanic vote intimidator. LULAC is right. That's because, just a week earlier, as now confirmed, Kenny Boy was shown to be a First Amendment censor — and a liar about federal law on nonprofits and advocacy.

Kamala Harris and the DNC are right to not see Tex-ass as a battleground. As for Gilberto Hinojosa talking about putting your money where your mouth is, the skipper of the TDC Minnow should do better first. Chris Hooks at the Monthly has more, but, with their paywall firming up, I can't tell you what.

Related? Off the Kuff considers the first post-Biden poll of Texas.

The migrant death rate continues to climb (presumably dropping with the falling attempted entry rate now), the Observer reports.

SocraticGadfly offered advance kudos to the pro-Palestinian activists at and around the DNC, then, updating throughout the week thoroughly skewered Shepard Fairey in Photoshop.

Meet the lies behind the home schooling push nationwide. 

Note to Texas Public Radio, and to many many Texans: Sex is not gender. That said, the DPS policy is wrong re transsexuals, who should indeed be allowed to change their sex of identification on a driver's license. And, shock me this is at the behest of Kenny Boy Paxton.

Gretchen Whitmer has failed on many promises, including many that involve no needed legislative action, like more executive branch government transparency. Sounds like the Democrats in the Colorado Lege on that. Instead, with things like non-disclosure agreements, she's even gone backward.

In his weekend link roundup, Kuff semi-fellated by posting without comment Chick-Fil-A into streaming. As its sammiches are bland white meat chicken on bland white buns for bland White people to do virtue signaling, I suspect its streaming is the same. Plus, Kuff ignored the religious rightism of its ownership.

Neil at the Houston Democracy Project read the 90 page report on the HPD suspended cases scandal. You want to know who is letting criminals back on the streets in great number? HPD! 

 Steve Vladeck explains why the SCOTUS ruling on Title IX is both a big deal and a huge mess. 

 Law Dork outlines what Kamala Harris needs to be saying about court reform. 

 Raise Your Hand Texas documents why Texas needs to invest more in pre-K. 

 Space City Weather and The Eyewall warn against calling this hurricane season a bust. 

 Your Local Epidemiologist presents a guide to Fall 2024 vaccines.  

Houstonia begs you to drive less on the highways and more on the regular roads.