You are on page 1of 2

Collaborize Posts

The main argument that these articles make is that the film, JFK, fooled the public into thinking
the evidence presented in the film was factual. In fact, many artistic liberties were taken and much of
the film was fiction. It contributed to high numbers of people that believe that there was some sort of
conspiracy concerning Oswald as the lone gunman among other disputes. In the film there are several
witnesses who allude to a conspiracy concerning several branches of government, and Lyndon B.
Johnson, with help from the Mafia who plotted to kill Kennedy due to his radical changes. In reality,
these witnesses did not exist, were not credible, or were cohered. In the first article Alex von
Tunzelmann writes, "Russo's testimony was not particularly lively until Garrison administered a dubious
“truth serum” of sodium pentothal – known to make people suggestible – and subjected him to
questioning under hypnosis". Clearly District Attorney Garrison's investigation was not credible. The
truth is that we would all like to believe in a conspiracy theory. We desperately desire that if the world is
this despicable, that it be despicably organized. In the second article Fred Kaplan writes, "Second, there
is comfort in this search for unseen mainsprings. If horrible events can be traced to a cabal of evildoers
who control the world from behind a vast curtain, that’s, in one sense, less scary than the idea that
some horrible things happen at random or as a result of a lone nebbish, a nobody. The existence of a
secret cabal means that there’s some sort of order in the world; a catastrophic fluke suggests there’s a
vast crevice of chaos, the essence of dread".
After watching the film, I was extremely convinced that some conspiracy had taken place, or at the
very least, Oswald had an assistant that was never identified. After reading these articles, however, I
realized I had been fooled. I simply assumed the film wouldn't make up evidence (exaggerate it, sure but
not completely create it). Some of the strongest evidence the film presented was the "magic bullet"
diagram, which was explained through the articles that the bullet was not in fact magic due to the raised
height of the back seat. I also was convinced by the gun logistics explained in the film. Physically, the gun
could not have shot 3 rounds in time that it did, however, this was not accounting for the fact that
Kennedy and Connally were shot by the same bullet. These articles completely blow a hole (pun
intended), in the theories presented by the film. I believe that it is possible Oswald could have been
working for some pro-Castro organization, but the government's involvement in death of Kennedy
seems completely absurd to me.

This article makes many of the same arguments that a documentary on the public school system
I recently watched made. It was saying to that because school districts are based on neighborhoods and
therefore incomes, particular schools are destined for failure. Poor students from uneducated families
enter low-performing schools that receive less money, perpetuating a very serious problem. I think this
article identifies the origin of this problem. The article discussed the desegregation of schools in the
south, in particular the combination of Druid High School and the all-white high school to form Central
High. This worked for many years. The school received monetary resources and the black students were
integrated with the white students and both were performing well. It only takes a few racist or paranoid
parents to take their kids out of public school to make the whole system fail. As soon as the school
become mainly made up of minorities and poor families, more and more students will leave (white
flight). In the case of Central, students left leaving Central 99% black. In addition, with the use of
gerrymandering to keep the successful white schools just as they are, this leaves the poor-performing
high schools doomed to this perpetuating educational nightmare.
The success of public education can only exist when everyone has faith in it. The schools are successful
when they are integrated, but many successfully schools fear the students from poor families will bring
down their test scores. In reality, when students from poor families attend school with students from
wealthy families, they perform better, but this must begin at the elementary school level to work. This
would improve the education in our country dramatically.
The best teachers in the country want to work at higher-paying private college prep schools. This leaves
poor-performing public schools with the worst teachers and the worst resources. Many assume that
schools were more integrated; they would all perform more poorly, stooping down to that level.
However, I believe that if they were more integrated they could perform at the private school level.
Public schools simply need to be as attractive to good teachers as private schools.
School resources should not be based on neighborhood income and gerrymandering based on racial on
income requirements should not be legal. The issues discussed in this article began due to racism. The
re-segregation of schools was more based on class prejudice than race prejudice, but it could lead to the
resurfacing of race prejudice because the students are segregated by district.
One interesting comment that the article made was that in the formally segregated schools in the
1960's, the black schools at least contained middle-class black families as well. However, in this case the
middle-class black families can go to the predominantly- white school based on where they live. This
literally leaves the schools in the poor neighborhoods hopeless.