Anthony Summers

Anthony Summers

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Murchison, Snr., like almost all oilmen, had backed Johnson for the White House in 1960, and his fears about Kennedy turned out to be justified. The young President made no secret of his opposition to the oil moguls' extraordinary tax privileges, and moved quickly to change them. Murchison and his associates, it turns out, were linked to the assassination saga by a series of disconcerting coincidences.

George de Mohrenschildt, an oil geologist who knew Murchison and had worked for one of his companies, was on intimate terms with alleged assassin Oswald. He would be found shot dead in 1977, an apparent suicide, on the day an Assassinations Committee investigator called to arrange an interview.

Within four days of the assassination, the FBI received a tip-off that Clint Murchison and Tom Webb - the FBI veteran the millionaire had hired at Edgar's suggestion - were both acquainted with Jack Ruby. While they denied it. Ruby had met one of Murchison's best friends, Humble Oil millionaire Billy Byars.

Byars was close to Edgar. They used adjacent bungalows at Murchison's California hotel each summer. The phone log for the Director's office shows that, aside from calls to Robert Kennedy and the head of the Secret Service, Edgar called only one man on the afternoon the President was shot - Billy Byars.

According to Delphine Roberts, Lee Oswald walked into her office sometime in 1963 and asked to fill in the forms for accreditation as one of Banister's "agents." Mrs. Roberts told me, "Oswald introduced himself by name and said he was seeking an application form. I did not think that was really why he was there. During the course of the conversation I gained the impression that he and Guy Banister already knew each other. After Oswald filled out the application form Guy Banister called him into the office. The door was closed, and a lengthy conversation took place. Then the young man left. I presumed then, and now am certain, that the reason for Oswald being there was that he was required to act undercover."

Mrs. Roberts said she was sure that whatever the nature of Banister's "interest" in Oswald, it concerned anti-Castro schemes, plans which she feels certain had the support and encouragement of government intelligence agencies. As she put it, "Mr. Banister had been a special agent for the FBI and was still working for them. There were quite a number of connections which he kept with the FBI and the CIA, too. I know he and the FBI traded information due to his former association...."

Summers places the nexus of the assassination in Cuba, and ironically in the shared interest of Castro and Attorney General Robert Kennedy's wish to clamp down on organised crime. For when Castro came to power he kicked out the mobsters but his initial relations with the USA were good. The Cuban political exiles, though, found great sympathy among the chiefs of the CIA, if not in the White House. The CIA were likely to put their support through the mob but with the failure of the Bay of Pigs the exiles' hatred, like the mobsters, turned on the Kennedies. The FBI at the highest level had little to reason to like the brothers, either: it was Robert Kennedy who made Edgar Hoover admit there was an organised crime problem. But Hoover was not totally corrupt, the Bureau was keeping an eye on the exile activity on the southern coast.

There is evidence that from his military service onwards Oswald was used as a double agent (he was not the only veteran to go to the Soviet Union: they all returned as he did, suggesting a standard course). He was featured in newspapers working both the Fair Play for Cuba committee and speaking for the exiles. He went to Mexico to try to get a Cuban visa, but of the three days that "Oswald" went to the embassy on only one of them was the visitor the real Oswald, and the CIA had tapes which showed this. The FBI opened all his mail sent to the Soviet Embassy, the various committees etc. Everybody knew what was going on. Which leads to the question: so how did the assassination happen? Summers can only make suggestions. Why can we not tell what happened? Summers can tell us how the various agencies screwed up and covered up. They may not have intended it, but the killing of the president was a result of all those conflicting interests.

Anthony Summers' comprehensive work on the assassination of JFK is among the top books on the subject, ranking alongside Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last Investigation." The author's voluminous research brings together the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle in a lucid and rare way. In a nutshell, the anti-Castro Cuban organizations (CRC, Alpha-66, etc.) and their right-wing American supporters (Gerry Patrick Hemming and Interpen, for example), the Mafia (Trafficante, Marcello, Giancana, Roselli), and elements within the CIA (David Atlee Phillips, E.Howard Hunt, Theodore Shackley, David Sanchez Morales, William Harvey, etc.) and their numerous contract agents (David Ferrie, Guy Banister, Lee Harvey Oswald) were collaborating in an effort to assassinate Fidel Castro and reverse the socialist revolution in Cuba. The Mob wanted their gambling casinos back, while the anti-Castro Cubans and the CIA wanted multi-national corporate capitalism back. In a classic case of "blowback", the forces working to destroy Fidel and the Cuban Revolution failed in their efforts and subsequently conspired to destroy the man (JFK) they believed responsible for their failure.

Anthony Summers: There is quite a lot of work being done in the last year or two that whatever the Kennedy administration was doing in conversations through Attwood and Colonel Lechuga, at the same time Robert Kennedy - and presumably the President too - was personally behind a major effort that envisioned the overthrow of Castro in the fall of 1963. Which would involve an internal coup with the death of Castro. After that, massive American backing for which Kennedy's perceived as being (Cuban) democrats as opposed to being right-wing extremists.

I asked Dean Rusk about this, shortly before his death a year or so before. And he told me, yes he learned about the plans for such a coup. They were indeed backed by JFK and understood by his brother and were in charge of it. That he learned of this in 1964 during meetings of the National Security Council. And what can one make of this? One is talking about not a double track, but a double cross? If the Kennedy's were talking peace on the one hand and a full 1963 coup on the other? He said, yes but they did this all the time. And he found that not surprising. He said the Kennedy's work that way. And he said rather cynically, do governments everywhere. In your research in Cuba, have Mr. Escalante and Lechuga gotten a similar picture of double-track, double-cross?

Fabian Escalante: Look, I'm going to answer very briefly. In 1963 McGeorge Bundy designed this new approach towards Cuba. It involved a double track or multiple track. This appeared in documents in the Church Committee. One of the tracks was to strengthen the blockade against Cuba, political pressure, the isolation of Cuba from the continent and also from Western Europe. To destroy through sabotage and external operations all the energy and industrial infrastructure in the country. In 1963 there were two major plans of sabotage proved against Cuba. Two paths, with one objective. To force Cuba to sit down at the negotiating table, but under very disadvantaged circumstances. That's why we never really heard what the possible American agenda would be. We never heard anything... That's why the Cuban government took its time to deeply study the proposal put forth by Attwood.

What could they possible been trying to do by trying to start a dialogue. So they took their time. Here's what happened according to our judgement. The hawks never supported, they didn't understand this strategy, didn't agree. Anything that didn't agree with a new invasion of Cuba, they didn't agree with. We think the hawks felt themselves betrayed. According to our judgement there were two strategies to be followed by the US: (1) from the administration; (2) and one from the CIA, the Cuban exiles, and the mafia - and even they had their own independent objectives. Around that on the part of this latter group, there developed this need to assassinate Kennedy. It seemed to them that Kennedy was not in agreement to the new invasion. That's our hypothesis.

Anthony Summers: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The information that's been coming out, new scholarship that Robert Kennedy personally in those weeks heading up to November 22, in the weeks leading up, was behind a detailed plan for the killing, overthrow of Castro, the killing of Raul, key leaders of the revolution. To be followed by massive American support for take over in Cuba by the so-called Cuban democrats. This was a real plan in the works. This is different from, maybe connected with but very specific and different from conversation.

Bryan Burrough’s laudatory review of Vincent Bugliosi’s book on the Kennedy assassination (May 20) is superficial and gratuitously insulting. “Conspiracy theorists” — blithe generalization — should according to Burroughs be “ridiculed, even shunned ... marginalized the way we’ve marginalized smokers.” Let’s see now. The following people to one degree or another suspected that President Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy, and said so either publicly or privately: Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon; Attorney General Robert Kennedy; John Kennedy’s widow, Jackie; his special adviser dealing with Cuba at the United Nations, William Attwood; F.B.I. director J. Edgar Hoover (!); Senators Richard Russell (a Warren Commission member), and Richard Schweiker and Gary Hart (both of the Senate Intelligence Committee); seven of the eight congressmen on the House Assassinations Committee and its chief counsel, G. Robert Blakey; the Kennedy associates Joe Dolan, Fred Dutton, Richard Goodwin, Pete Hamill, Frank Mankiewicz, Larry O’Brien, Kenneth O’Donnell and Walter Sheridan; the Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who rode with the president in the limousine; the presidential physician, Dr. George Burkley; Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago; Frank Sinatra; and the “60 Minutes” producer Don Hewitt. All of the above, à la Burrough, were idiots.

Not so, of course. Most of them were close to the events and people concerned, and some had privileged access to evidence and intelligence that threw doubt on the “lone assassin” version. That doubt remains today. Bugliosi himself this year joined us, Don DeLillo, Gerald Posner, Robert Blakey and two dozen other writers on the assassination in signing an open letter that appeared in the March 15 issue of The New York Review of Books. The letter focused on a specific unresolved lead, the discovery that a highly regarded C.I.A. officer named George Joannides was in 1963 running an anti-Castro exile group that had a series of encounters with Oswald shortly before the assassination.

This is obviously pertinent, yet the C.I.A. hid the fact from four J.F.K. investigations. Since 1998, when the agency did reluctantly disclose the merest outline of what Joannides was up to, it has energetically stonewalled a Freedom of Information suit to obtain the details of its officer’s activities. Here we are in 2007, 15 years after Congress unanimously approved the J.F.K. Assassination Records Act mandating the “immediate” release of all assassination-related records, and the C.I.A. is claiming in federal court that it has the right not to do so.

And now your reviewer, Burrough, seems to lump together all those who question the official story as marginal fools. Burrough’s close-minded stance should be unacceptable to every historian and journalist worthy of the name — especially at a time when a federal agency is striving vigorously to suppress very relevant information.

Death of Marilyn Monroe

Marilyn Monroe died of a barbiturate overdose late in the evening of Saturday, August 4, 1962, at her 12305 Fifth Helena Drive home in Los Angeles, California. Her body was discovered before dawn on Sunday, August 5. She was one of the most popular Hollywood stars during the 1950s and early 1960s, was considered a major sex symbol at the time, and was a top-billed actress for a decade. Monroe's films had grossed $200 million by the time of her death. [1]

Monroe had suffered from mental illness and substance abuse for several years prior to her death, and she had not completed a film since The Misfits, released on February 1, 1961 the movie was a box-office disappointment. Monroe had spent 1961 preoccupied with her various health problems, and in April 1962 had begun filming Something's Got to Give for 20th Century-Fox, but the studio fired her in early June. The studio publicly blamed her for the production's problems, and in the weeks preceding her death, Monroe attempted to repair her public image by giving several interviews to high-profile publications. She also began negotiations with Fox on being re-hired for Something's Got to Give and for starring roles in other productions.

Monroe spent the last day of her life, August 4, at her home in Brentwood. She was accompanied at various times by publicist Patricia Newcomb, housekeeper Eunice Murray, photographer Lawrence Schiller and psychiatrist Ralph Greenson. At Greenson's request, Murray stayed overnight to keep Monroe company. At approximately 3 a.m. on Sunday, August 5, she noticed that Monroe had locked herself in her bedroom and appeared unresponsive when she looked into the bedroom through a window. Murray alerted Greenson, who arrived soon after, entered the room by breaking a window, and found Monroe dead. Her death was officially ruled a probable suicide by the Los Angeles County coroner's office, based on precedents of her overdosing and being prone to mood swings and suicidal ideation. No evidence of foul play was found, and accidental overdose was ruled out because of the large amount of barbiturates she had ingested. On August 8 her funeral, arranged by Joe DiMaggio, took place at the Westwood Village Memorial Park Cemetery, then she was interred in a crypt at the Corridor of Memories.

Despite the coroner's findings, several conspiracy theories suggesting murder or accidental overdose have been proposed since the mid-1960s. Many of these involve President John F. Kennedy and his brother, Robert, as well as union leader Jimmy Hoffa and mob boss Sam Giancana. Because of the prevalence of these theories in the media, the office of the Los Angeles County District Attorney reviewed the case in 1982, but found no evidence to support them and did not disagree with the findings of the original investigation.

Faculty & Staff

Carol Summers is currently researching and thinking about patriotic savings programs (and the emergence of new formal sector public banking) across Britain’s world (Uganda, Britain, Canada and beyond) from World War II into the 1950s. To date, she has published articles and chapters on late colonial Uganda, focusing on how Uganda’s activists debated ideas of citizenship, democracy, loyalty and patriotism in combination with local normative values of family, clan and kingdom, then deploying their critiques as part of their efforts to reconstruct a moral and modern kingdom. Earlier work, including her two books, focused on colonial Zimbabwe, first examining the ideology and social policy behind segregation (From Civilization to Segregation 1994), and then looking specifically at how Zimbabweans struggled over schools (Colonial Lessons, 2002). Before that, her earliest work was on syphilis and reproductive policy in the construction of colonial Uganda.

American Council of Learned Societies Sabbatical Fellowship (2007-2008)

American Philosophical Society Sabbatical Fellowship (2007-2008)

National Humanities Center Fellow (2003-2004)

Princeton University Davis Center Fellow (1999)

National Academy of Education Spencer Fellow (1995)

Institute for Advanced Study in the African Humanities Fellow, Northwestern University (1995)

Gary Summers keeps the Waynesboro Volunteer Fire Co.'s history alive

Summers is putting several books together depicting the department's history as a fundraiser.

They say a picture&rsquos worth a thousand words.

Gary Summers of the Waynesboro Volunteer Fire Department has enough photos to fill several books depicting the extensive history of the department dating back to the 1800s, a time horse-drawn pumpers were used to race to the scene of a blaze when a loud bell clanged in the fire house.

The oldest fire Summers has a photo of occurred on May 29, 1856, in a dwelling on the corner of Potomac and Main streets, right next to John Bell&rsquos pottery factory.
Summers has been posting photos on the department&rsquos website and has received many inquiries regarding its history. He has been given old scrapbooks by the families of late firemen and was recently given hundreds more photographs by the Waynesboro Historical Society that were taken by several people, including Bob Ringer, Don Ringer and Phil Staley.

&ldquoThey want to put 250 photos in one book,&rdquo Summers said. &ldquoI have thousands. I am planning on putting together several books as a fundraiser for the department. I am working on contracts with Arcadia Publishing who did the &lsquoAround Waynesboro&rsquo book in their Images of America series. Dru&rsquos Books &lsquoN Things has already agreed to sell them. We are hoping to have something published by Market Day (October) 2014.&rdquo

Summers pointed to yellowed newspaper clippings, black and white photographs, paintings and parade ribbons dating back to the Civil War tacked on display boards inside the fire hall&rsquos basement museum.

Historic blazes such as the Wolf building on March 2, 1900 the fire and explosion at the Sanitary Lunch at 58-68 W. Main St. on Dec. 17, 1924 the Wayne Building fire on Jan. 19, 1930, that destroyed 14 businesses housed inside the Geiser Manufacturing plant and complex destroyed on Aug. 21, 1940 the Brake Pontiac Garage on South Potomac Street on Jan. 13, 1949 the Sherman building fire on June 28, 1973 the Fairview Avenue Elementary School fire on Oct. 4, 1974 the Anthony Wayne Hotel Fire on Dec. 3, 1976 and the $3 million Frick Co. arson on Nov. 19, 1988, that destroyed the main office building and storage building.

Summers recalled being in charge of the scene of the Aug. 16, 1994, plane crash that claimed four lives when a twin-engine 320 Cessna crashed into a home at 152 S. Potomac St.

&ldquoThis has brought a lot into perspective for me,&rdquo Summers said. &ldquoIt&rsquos humbling to be a part of something that&rsquos so much bigger than yourself.&rdquo

Summers said one of the department&rsquos horses was sold to a milkman after the department became motorized.

&ldquoThe milkman had parked the milk cart with its brakes on Church Street. When the bell rang at the fire station, the horse dragged the cart all the way to South Potomac Street because that is what it was trained to do,&rdquo Summers said. &ldquoIt&rsquos neat that we kept all of this stuff, and people are giving it to me to share.&rdquo

Fire Chief Dave Martin, who has been a member of the department for 22 years, said he is glad Summers is putting the books together.

&ldquoI&rsquom glad to see somebody&rsquos taking an interest in keeping the history alive,&rdquo Martin said.
Robert Ashway has been a member of the department for 10 years. His father, Vernon Ashway Sr., was a member of the department when Robert was a boy.

&ldquoHe would tell us stories of the fires he responded to, like the Colonial Fair fire (in 1969),&rdquo Robert Ashway said. &ldquoI think it&rsquos a good idea. It&rsquos interesting to see how the department grew over time, to see the pictures and how they used horses, and how we are now.&rdquo

Summers said uncovering the various pieces of the endless puzzle has been quite interesting.

&ldquoIt&rsquos a little CSI thing for me,&rdquo he added.

&ldquoHere&rsquos a photo of Spangler Mill Bridge that burned Aug. 1, 1963,&rdquo Summers continued. &ldquoNo one knows where that is. They have an idea, but we&rsquore not 100 percent sure. I have photos of Girl Scout troops from the 1970s that don&rsquot have names written on them. I&rsquod like to identify these people. A lot of these things have been lost over the years. I want to try and preserve as much as I can.&rdquo

Summers said he has been consulting with some of the older members of the department to fill in the blanks, and has been jogging their memories.

&ldquoRight now, I&rsquom going through Don Ringer&rsquos notes and getting all the major fires together,&rdquo he said. &ldquoBut, there are still holes. There are still pieces missing.&rdquo

Summers said if anyone wants to send him old photos or help identify people in the photos he posts, they can email him at:
[email protected]


by Glennon Doyle ‧ RELEASE DATE: March 10, 2020

More life reflections from the bestselling author on themes of societal captivity and the catharsis of personal freedom.

In her third book, Doyle (Love Warrior, 2016, etc.) begins with a life-changing event. “Four years ago,” she writes, “married to the father of my three children, I fell in love with a woman.” That woman, Abby Wambach, would become her wife. Emblematically arranged into three sections—“Caged,” “Keys,” “Freedom”—the narrative offers, among other elements, vignettes about the soulful author’s girlhood, when she was bulimic and felt like a zoo animal, a “caged girl made for wide-open skies.” She followed the path that seemed right and appropriate based on her Catholic upbringing and adolescent conditioning. After a downward spiral into “drinking, drugging, and purging,” Doyle found sobriety and the authentic self she’d been suppressing. Still, there was trouble: Straining an already troubled marriage was her husband’s infidelity, which eventually led to life-altering choices and the discovery of a love she’d never experienced before. Throughout the book, Doyle remains open and candid, whether she’s admitting to rigging a high school homecoming court election or denouncing the doting perfectionism of “cream cheese parenting,” which is about “giving your children the best of everything.” The author’s fears and concerns are often mirrored by real-world issues: gender roles and bias, white privilege, racism, and religion-fueled homophobia and hypocrisy. Some stories merely skim the surface of larger issues, but Doyle revisits them in later sections and digs deeper, using friends and familial references to personify their impact on her life, both past and present. Shorter pieces, some only a page in length, manage to effectively translate an emotional gut punch, as when Doyle’s therapist called her blooming extramarital lesbian love a “dangerous distraction.” Ultimately, the narrative is an in-depth look at a courageous woman eager to share the wealth of her experiences by embracing vulnerability and reclaiming her inner strength and resiliency.

Doyle offers another lucid, inspiring chronicle of female empowerment and the rewards of self-awareness and renewal.

The Kennedy Conspiracy

The other night, I was chatting online with my friend, Amanda. She asked what I was doing, and I told her I was reading a book about the JFK Assassination. There was a long pause while she thought and typed.

Her reply: One thing I don&apost understand, and don&apost want to read a bunch of books to find out, is why people are still so caught up with the assassination. JFK? The ONLY thing I know about him is that he was shot in the head. And that his wife is named Jackie, and for some reason I know that The other night, I was chatting online with my friend, Amanda. She asked what I was doing, and I told her I was reading a book about the JFK Assassination. There was a long pause while she thought and typed.

Her reply: One thing I don't understand, and don't want to read a bunch of books to find out, is why people are still so caught up with the assassination. JFK? The ONLY thing I know about him is that he was shot in the head. And that his wife is named Jackie, and for some reason I know that he was Catholic Why do people still care about him?

For her, that's a perfectly valid question. Amanda is 24. She was twelve when 9/11 happened The Cold War—such a big part of JFK’s administration—was over before she started school. For Amanda and her peers, 9/11 is their defining event, her generation’s equivalent of the JFK assassination.

I wasn’t alive when JFK was killed, but I grew up with the legends of Kennedy’s Camelot, of his vitality and wit, and of that terrible day in Dallas. My parents talked about JFK when November 22nd rolled around. My teachers—also Baby Boomers—talked about it. What I told Amanda was that for a couple generations of Americans, the day JFK died, something in America also died.

For Amanda, that day tolled shortly after 9/10/01 turned over to 9/11/01. That was when her generation’s innocence was lost, and it’s understandable why the Kennedy assassination doesn’t resonate with her.

For me, though, it does. Since I was in middle school, I’ve read books about JFK, his administration, his family, especially his assassination. My conclusions aren’t important here. My point is that for millions of Americans, JFK still matters.

And most Americans don’t buy that a scrawny Marxist nutball named Lee Harvey Oswald—acting alone—killed the most-powerful man in the free world.

The government’s official findings—The Warren Report—say there was no conspiracy in Dallas: that Oswald killed JFK, period.

In the preface to “Not in Your Lifetime,” author Anthony Summers quotes a 2009 CBS News poll that says 76% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy. Similar numbers think there was a government cover-up to hide the truth from the American people, and that we will never know exactly what happened that day.

“Not in Your Lifetime” is Anthony Summers’s intelligent, scholarly study of the JFK Assassination. It was originally published in 1983 under the title, “Conspiracy.” Since then, Summers has repeatedly updated his original work, essentially rewriting it by now. He changed the title to jibe with what Chief Justice Earl Warren said to a reporter asking when all of the information would be released: due to security concerns, “Not in your lifetime.”

Over the past fifty years, documents were released here and there, until the early 1990’s, when tens of millions of pages were released regarding the JFK Assassination.

Summers has examined many of these, as well as other fresh sources. He has conducted dozens of interviews with key players in the JFK assassination. Summers has a theory as to what happened on November 22nd, 1963, and he explains it here, with impeccable documentation.

Could one man kill President Kennedy from a sixth-floor warehouse window? Or was there an intricate plot involving various groups inside and outside the government?

While today’s twenty-somethings may have moved past the day JFK was shot and Camelot crumbled, millions of people still chew-over facts and fairytales, trying to make peace with what happened. As long as the debate continues, we can hope Anthony Summers keeps updating his wonderful book, “Not in Your Lifetime.”

(nb: I received an Advance Review Copy from the publisher via NetGalley)
. more

Originally published in 1980, this impressive example of deep investigative journalism has been regularly updated and revised with new information. The Edition that I am reviewing is the 1998 edition.

The book contains several pleas for the US Government to be more forthcoming with documentation and I am not qualified to assess whether any &apossmoking gun&apos document has been found since my reprint (2001). I think we would have heard of it by now.

Nevertheless, what is in this dense and fully foot-not
Originally published in 1980, this impressive example of deep investigative journalism has been regularly updated and revised with new information. The Edition that I am reviewing is the 1998 edition.

The book contains several pleas for the US Government to be more forthcoming with documentation and I am not qualified to assess whether any 'smoking gun' document has been found since my reprint (2001). I think we would have heard of it by now.

Nevertheless, what is in this dense and fully foot-noted book, which tries to summarise research by other respectable investigators (a story where politically engaged populists like Oliver Stone have probably done more harm than good) is remarkably full and interesting.

Summers lays out his evidence and refuses to speculate too far beyond the data, certainly not directly on the grand questions of whether Oswald pulled the trigger or not and whether he was a patsy or a participant in some conspiracy to kill President Kennedy.

Part of the value of the book is that it forces you to think and evaluate the evidence for yourself and so to come up with the most likely (all things being equal) narrative for what actually happened in the years and months leading up to the assassination and even on the day itself.

Perhaps once or twice in nearly 400 pages and another just under 1oo of footnotes I may have questioned Summers' interpretation of specific evidence but his work stands up very well to scrutiny with speculation reduced to the minimum necessary to make some sense of it all.

The best I can do is interpret the facts as I can, knowing that another reader may read them differently. There is no shock headline here just the accumulation of circumstantial evidence to the point when you would be wilfully blind to believe the Warren Commission Report was not fiction.

1. It is possible that Lee Harvey Oswald did not actually pull the trigger from the Book Warehouse but we can probably never know that. The 'grassy knoll' and forensic evidence is indistinct.

2. It is almost certain that the Soviets or Castro Cubans had nothing to do with any conspiracy although immense efforts (well documented) appeared to have gone into trying to 'frame' the Soviet Union or Cuba in the weeks before the assassination.

3. There is significant evidence that Oswald was involved in special intelligence 'dirty tricks' operations against Castro's Cuba and that he was a well known participant in 'deep state' or radical right circles since late teen age.

4. There is evidence that Oswald was on the US intelligence services' radar screens for some time before the assassination and the FBI and CIA appear to have gone to an awful lot of trouble to try and cover up that aspect of the matter immediately afterwards.

5. Oswald was possibly a high security clearance agent for naval intelligence and his visit to the Soviet Union engineered for intelligence purposes. His 'flakiness' is as likely as not to have been cover. Of course, the line between flakiness and off balance sheet security work is a fine one.

6. Oswald had family connections to the mob and Jack Ruby was much more embedded in mob networks (notably the powerful Marcello network) than most accounts seem to imply. He was not quite such a minor player, with a track record that goes back to Capone and the Outfit in Chicago.

7. Oswald appears to have had longstanding personal connections to right-wing extremists with links to the anti-Castro community who in turn had close links to the Mob (in view of a shared interest in overthrowing Castro)

8. There is reason to believe that, for different reasons, the Mob (Giancana-Marcello-Trafficante) and extreme elements in the anti-Castro insurgent forces (and their minders in the intelligence services) had 'good reason' to want Kennedy dead.

9. Oswald's engagement with anti-Castro activity looks increasingly (as the evidence piles up) like the sort of agent provocateur action typical of domestic intelligence operations and adds to the 'evidence' that if he was being set up as a patsy in the context of what was to happen in Dallas.

10. There is evidence that in the period leading up to the assassination there were contacts between Oswald and others which might imply police corruption and Oswald being set up for arrest. The ease of access to Oswald of Jack Ruby also looks suspicious in this context.

The attempted assassination of right-wing extremist General Walker has always looked suspiciously 'set up' to me especially as Oswald (or whoever) missed but there is no evidence that Walker was involved in any conspiracy.

Similarly the murdered Officer Tippit looks a lot less of an innocent party in Summers account of him and even the circumstances of Oswald's movements and arrest at the cinema look puzzling.

Overall, the most plausible scenario (as far as Oswald is concerned) is that he was being set up to be a patsy or was directly involved in the assassination but was unaware of a second level of activity designed to incriminate the Soviet Union in the assassination.

This latter really does look evidenced by the weight of suspicious activity involving possible impersonations of Oswald in Mexico City and the stories placed in the media in the immediate aftermath of the assassination - though this part looks pretty amateur to my seasoned eye.

As for the 'conspiracy', the most plausible scenario is that anti-Castro militants (supported by a right-wing fringe element in the security services), with Mob connections and access to Mob assets and resources, killed the President.

I now find the Robin Ramsay 'cui bono' related to the circle around LBJ as less plausible unless someone is postulating that all Summers evidence is incredibly coincidental and that something else was going on all this time! Summers is certainly as plausible as any official investigation.

If so, the anti-Castro militants feared (wrongly) that Kennedy was turning away from toppling the regime (and that LBJ would take a tougher line) and the Mob wanted to pay the Kennedys for welching on the deal they thought they had in 1960 and also warn off investigators.

The identity of interest between Mob and anti-Castro activists was the overthrow of the Castro regime (an interest shared with the Government and the CIA) but this would be only the framework for a more specifically directed plot.

And where do the US intelligence services fit into this? Probably just as totally embarrassed people who find that one of their own (albeit a minor player) has killed their own boss. Then they desperately run around trying to get the facts off the agenda of investigators, colleagues and media.

There is a strong suggestion which would be plausible, of an element in the intelligence services, perhaps semi-detached and 'political', engaged directly in anti-Castro subversion, emotionally engaged in the Cuban situation and able to talk to the Mob when required.

It would be naive not to believe that these types of sociopathic groups emerge inside all unaccountable intelligence services at moments of tension or under weak leadership - we can think of the Italian cases in the 1970s and rogue activity in Northen Ireland.

The question is whether such a rogue element knew of, connived in and even facilitated an essentially Cuban dissident operation with Mob aspects in order to meet some other political objective. This one is tougher to claim - doubtful for any but criminalised security elements.

But this moves us well into 'deep state' territory which is, by its very nature, almost impossible to evidence very far. The balance of admittedly circumstantial evidence strongly indicates that this was more than possible with motive and means both available.

I will leave you to read the book in regard to motives but, in the foot notes, there is one very dark suggestion which we should note, disturbed perhaps, and pass on - this is that the assassination might be linked to a military claim of a particular window of opportunity.

There was serious military interest in a successful 'first strike' against the Soviet Union before the notorious 'missile gap' disappeared. This too has to be seen in a Cuban context since all Americans were painfully aware of how close they had come to be being incinerated.

Kennedy was horrified and forbad any further discussion of it but we have to take account of the possibility (no more) that radical right intelligence awareness of this 'opportunity' might offer the chance to incriminate the Soviet bloc and defeat world communism. Some were nutty enough.

Should we take this seriously? We are a long way now from a lone loony gunman. Oswald can only be regarded as that if we forget his family connections to organised crime, the mass of coincidences, the historic link to right-wing extremists, the Cuban aspect and so on and so forth.

Maybe he had all these attributes and connections but still was loopy and did the deed without orders. Under this scenario, Jack Ruby took him out before he could open up a can of worms that might implicate 'innocent' parties. That too is possible.

In the end, we do not know but we do know that the 'conspiracy theories' are not to be dismissed as the work of nutters (though some are) but as ways of seeing events in a way that is no less plausible (probably more so) than the grossly poorly evidenced official versions.

The real story is, as always, hidden. It is not who killed the President - do we honestly care any more? It is what conditions make the alternative versions credible and what did and do we do about it if they persist. Let us review them.

A: There is the lack of accountability of the military towards the welfare of the people they serve - the people we elect are merely a thin and weak barrier between us and destruction. In the standard model, welfare-warfare state, the two elements are regarded as separate. Is this wise?

B: There can be a lack of accountability and gross internal mismanagement within the intelligence services but especially of sections of the intelligence services that operate either outside the law or become politicised in undemocratic ways because of their secret work.

C: There is the state sponsorship of subversive operations against other 'regimes' that permits the emergence of special interest groups trained to kill, with intelligence connections and with political motives in using violence or disinformation to affect democratic decision-making.

D: There is the use of low level operatives to investigate but also to disrupt and discredit lawful dissident political operations in a democracy (as Oswald was clearly doing if Summers' pile of evidence stands up)

E: There is the impunity of organised crime and the tendency of political intelligence services to solve problems outside the law by cutting deals with mobsters.

These disturbing but well known aspects of the 'deep state' are all found evidentially laid out (regardless of the assassination) in Summers' book at different points.

Together, they almost define the infamous Deep State: institutionalised military power, an unaccountable security apparatus, state-backed regime change, state infiltration of internal politics and the latitude permitted to any organised crime interest that stays within 'its box'.

I would like to think that matters have improved somewhat since 1963 but I have my doubts. Everything is just run more effectively (lessons learned!) and more subtly. If some state actor was complicit in the Kennedy assassination, the first lesson would have been that victory was Pyrrhic.

Perhaps from now on, the Deep State just tries to make sure a wrong 'un isn't put into power at the start. Yet much of what we saw in 1963 has simply been transmuted into another form despite some honest reforming efforts by some honest politicians.

Just glance at NATO's political interventions in Europe in the last few years, at the emergence of mass surveillance, at the manipulation of soft power to build momentum for regime change, at the use of the media for political purposes and at the lack of progress in dealing with organised crime.

But matters are at least less violent and obvious. We have become sophisticated. But, going back to the Kennedy assassination, we should not look at the US through the lense of the half century since 1963.

If we look at the country through a different lens - the previous half century - we see a nation with a high level of overt and covert violence inherent in its politics, not just cultural manipulation and control of information.

Assassinating a President may seem horrific to 'ordinary' Americans but, just as the US is only now coming to terms with its criminal gulag and police brutality, it would take another two decades for the US to exorcise state violence as an instrument of policy and then not for long.

The Church Committee Hearings were an eye-opener but the old ways were back with a vengeance with the arrival of George Bush II and on terms that ensured direct advocacy for sociopathy by half the political class. The next assassin will no doubt be a Muslim threat or Muslim patsy.

So it is very reasonable to look at the hyper-tense culture of the American South, in the context of civil rights and fear of communism, as always marginally on the edge of political violence but also possibly of military intervention in politics.

Be all that as it may, the book is highly recommended for anyone seriously interested not just in the Kennedy assassination but also in modern American politics and the curious phenomenon of the Deep State. . more

November, 2013 marks the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination and many Americans still do not feel as though they have been told the complete truth about the President’s death. Chief Justice Warren, who chaired the first inquiry into the assassination, said that some things that “involve security” might not be released in our lifetime. While millions of pages of records were made public in the late 1990’s there are still more than a thousand documents being withheld by the CIA due to “natio November, 2013 marks the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination and many Americans still do not feel as though they have been told the complete truth about the President’s death. Chief Justice Warren, who chaired the first inquiry into the assassination, said that some things that “involve security” might not be released in our lifetime. While millions of pages of records were made public in the late 1990’s there are still more than a thousand documents being withheld by the CIA due to “national security.” These documents are expected to be held until 2017. Why? In “Not in Your Lifetime” Anthony Summers attempts to address this question and to write a reliable account of the murder that continues to haunt America.

It feels as though every book written about the JFK assassination claims to be the best and the most authoritative account of the event. I now pick up every JFK book with skepticism and doubt as to the accuracy of the information and the unbiased (or very biased) attitude of the author. To date, Not in Your Lifetime by Anthony Summers is one of the best books of the JFK assassination that I have read.

Summers does not write Not in Your Lifetime with any preconceived ideas or theories behind the assassination. If he has them, and I’m sure he does, he does not allow them to control his writing. Instead, he succeeds in presenting the data from the reports and evidence very directly and allowing the data to lead the reader. Be forewarned, there are mountains upon mountains of data and evidence to sift through. At times it does become a bit overwhelming and this is a book that will take multiple days to read if the intent is to read it and analyze it correctly. It is very long and can easily become an exhausting read if you attempt to read it quickly.

For any reader out there interested in a pro-conspiracy view of the JFK assassination I would highly recommend Not in Your Lifetime. It is easy to appreciate Summers open perspective on all of the evidence that has been released in the JFK assassination. Instead of sifting through it and only presenting the data that supports his theory Summers exposes all of the data and indicates how it leads to natural and inevitable conclusions. An interesting take with fascinating facts to consider, this is a great book for anyone interested in political mystery and, specifically, the JFK assassination.

This is, in my opinion, the best and most comprehensive book written about the questions surrounding the JFK assassination. I read his first version of this in 1980 and have re-read that numerous times. The issues that Summers raised helped inspire me to write my own JFK book, a novel called The Kennedy Connection which will be out in August which provides a fictional view of the JFK controversy . This is an updated version of the Summers book and provided This is, in my opinion, the best and most comprehensive book written about the questions surrounding the JFK assassination. I read his first version of this in 1980 and have re-read that numerous times. The issues that Summers raised helped inspire me to write my own JFK book, a novel called The Kennedy Connection which will be out in August which provides a fictional view of the JFK controversy . This is an updated version of the Summers book and provided even more insight into the greatest unsolved crime in history.

This is an exhaustive look at the JFK assassination. Summers covers the events on that fateful day in Dallas in great detail. He also gives a thorough account of who Lee Oswald was and who he may have involved himself with. This book is long. It is detailed. It is well written, but it is as exhausting as it is exhaustive. Maybe it is the subject matter that wore me out so, but I could not bring myself to finish the last few chapters.

If you have any interest in the JFK assassination, especially This is an exhaustive look at the JFK assassination. Summers covers the events on that fateful day in Dallas in great detail. He also gives a thorough account of who Lee Oswald was and who he may have involved himself with. This book is long. It is detailed. It is well written, but it is as exhausting as it is exhaustive. Maybe it is the subject matter that wore me out so, but I could not bring myself to finish the last few chapters.

If you have any interest in the JFK assassination, especially conspiracy aspects of it, you will benefit from this book. Be aware, it is a mountain of information about a tragic and creepy event in U.S. history. . more

When it comes to believing in conspiracy theories, the Kennedy Assassination is the respectable conspiracy. The one it is ok to believe was a conspiracy without people immediately having an image of you sat at your computer in a tin-foil hat when you tell them. Some ‘conspiracies’ (9/11, Moon landings, etc) ARE only believed by tin-foil hat with a propellor on top-wearing nincompoops blind and deaf idiots…but that John F. Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy, is beyond question. The When it comes to believing in conspiracy theories, the Kennedy Assassination is the respectable conspiracy. The one it is ok to believe was a conspiracy without people immediately having an image of you sat at your computer in a tin-foil hat when you tell them. Some ‘conspiracies’ (9/11, Moon landings, etc) ARE only believed by tin-foil hat with a propellor on top-wearing nincompoops blind and deaf idiots…but that John F. Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy, is beyond question. The only question is ‘by whom?’ Forget Oswald. It is first unlikely he was at the window with a gun, if he was, he certainly wasn’t the ‘lone gunman’ of the Warren Commission’s whitewash, though he was probably not actually aware he had had an accomplice - you’re not gonna keep a ‘patsy’ in the loop, now are you?

One has to face one of the few undisputed facts in the whole JFK assassination case - it wasn’t suicide. I mean, the fact is that we will never find out what really happened that day, the 22nd November, 1963. About the only other fact on which most people interested in the case can agree, is that he died in the car in Dealy Plaza, or on the way to the hospital (he didn’t die at the hospital, as is sometimes claimed, as half his skull was blown out by the shots in the square, you try it). ’Shots’ yeah, but how many? From where? By whom? Anything other than he was killed in Dallas, 22 November 1963, is disputed. And often.

Think about it: If someone came tomorrow and said “I did it and this is how I did it and why,” no one would believe them. Or, for everyone who did, there’d be ten who could ‘prove' - most likely in print - why it couldn’t have been so. There is film of the shooting, of bullets hitting Kennedy. That is disputed. Not that it doesn’t show Kennedy being hit by bullets, but for everyone who says it shows Kennedy being hit with bullets from (at least) two different directions, there are an equal number who say it does not. There is an (audio only) recording of the whole incident. Yet for every ‘expert’ who says you can hear four shots (the minimum number to be agreed upon for there to have been a conspiracy), there are an equal number of experts who say you can hear no such thing. The people in the square, on the day, who swore blind that they heard shots coming from the direction of the grassy knoll, heard no such thing say experts (usually experts who weren’t there at the time, or have run tests subsequently - which obviously cannot replicate the conditions of the time). The people in the square on the day who heard and saw smoke from shots from the grassy knoll and ran there to investigate, were wrong or fooled, by mass hysteria I have even read. And ’The Umbrella Man’…don’t even go there. There are people who saw two figures just prior to the shooting up near the offending window of the Texas School Book Depository, where Lee Harvy Oswald worked. Unfortunately, not at the window where the boxes piled and three bullet casings were found. There were people who ’saw’ Oswald there, when there are also people who saw him several floors below in the canteen at the same time. The parade was delayed in arriving at the plaza. Something an assassin would not have known, so would have had to have been in place at or before the originally predicted time. Yet there are people who saw Oswald at that time, just before it or just after. In a condition which would not have suggested he just fired three shots (or was on his way to fire them) and dashed away and down stairs to be in the canteen having a drink. And, three shots? Why? Because three bullet casings were found? Yes…but…the casings were found in a neat little arrangement, not gathered up as an assassin not wanting to be caught might have been reasonablyexpected to have done. And only three. No other bullets or ammunition if you like, for the gun were found. Ever. Not at the site or at Oswald’s property. The cases they found didn’t have his fingerprints on them, which might be considered unusual when loading a bolt-action gun. Which it is highly unlikely could have been fired three times in the timeframe with the accuracy credited to it. It IS possible, but not by Oswald, at that time. His palm print was ‘found’ on the gun stock. Much later. After it had been reported there wasn’t a print and in a position which wouldn’t suggest it was a print from someone who held the gun in a manner by it could be fired. He took three bullets, fired three bullets and hit the President three times…nope, maybe twice. Something somewhere up in that old attic I call a brain there, also tells me something like I’ve even seen a theory that the real target that day, wasn’t Kennedy, but Connally. I won’t go on.

‘Not In Your Lifetime’ was, as I suspected on reading, a book I read previously (1980) as ‘Conspiracy.’ It is - he says at the start - significantly updated and rewritten. Almost a new book. Up-dated with (his) new ‘evidence’ (interviews and document combing) and a change the title. It is now a quote from Chief Justice Earl Warren, when asked if all the Commission’s investigation’s evidence would ever be made public, who said “Yes, there will come a time. But it might not be in your lifetime. I am not referring to anything especially, but there may be some things that would involve security. This would be preserved but not made public.” That would suggest first there is more evidence still to come out. Summers makes much of this, but not in an overt way. He doesn’t want it to appear that his book isn’t complete, after all. More in a way to suggest that his research has led him to find what is most likely the evidence still to come out. Though he - naturally - hedges his bets on this front. It is unlikely there is still a ’smoking gun’ to come, it’s more likely, you ask me, to be information which would show what a right Royal lash-up the USA Secret (and non-secret) Services made of the whole sorry mess, before and after. That despite Oswald being under such close, documented security, by any number of agencies, he - and his undoubted accomplices - managed to sneak, undetected, past, fooling them all? Unless THAT is why they want to cover their asses? It’s more likely kept hidden (if not already ‘accidentally’ destroyed) for those reasons. Even now. Most of the principle figures are dead and the world has turned, but being shown up to be idiotic, inefficient blundering fools can still hurt reputations.

Summers does organise a huge amount of evidence and conjecture superbly well into a very easily understandable story/timeline. The main area of interest in NIYL, is the section dealing with the day itself. Something the other ‘definitive’ book I’ve read recently, 'A Farewell To Justice,’ has very little to say about. To be fair, Joan Mellen’s aims are elsewhere, concerned with the CIA and FBI involvement, along with Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald’s links to both the afore-mentioned and each other. I did think, given the near perfection of the Mellen book it was more than a little churlish of Summers to almost dismiss her efforts - I’d put money on that he had her in mind when he wrote, “It is hugely improbable that any US agency - or top leadership of an agency- had any part in the assassination." Something, from my reading of her book any way, Mellen proved without a shadow of a doubt. Though, the ‘or’ could be important in the quote above. I also think he makes a mistake when, early on, he points out that “What the polls have consistently shown is that millions do not believe what the official inquiry that followed the assassination, the Warren Commission, told them happened…74 percent of those Americans polled in a January 2013 study believed…that there had been a conspiracy… 74 percent of respondents, according to the same poll, believed that there had been “an official cover-up to keep the public from learning the truth about the assassination” The vast majority, 77 percent, thought the full truth would never be known.” Oh really, Mike Brearley? And the public are all experts with expert knowledge of the case? Nope. Basing a premise on that the great American unwashed think it must be so, isn’t a good way to go. Maybe that the next question the same group were asked, “Did God create the world an all of us inside seven days?” which got a higher poll reading, got edited out. That’s from me, for the cheap Mellen shot.

However, while dismissing CIA links (as above), we get “…renegade anti-Castro forces within the CIA or used by it, sought to assassinate President Kennedy and by manipulation of Oswald, and through true or false facts that could be pinned on him, lay the blame on Castro. That done, they would have surmised, the United States would be almost bound to retaliate by invading and toppling the Cuban communist regime.” And he gets closer to one of the most shocking areas of the Joan Mellen book, in that Robert Kennedy didn’t actually want the murder investigated. The Warren Commission was to squash the whole investigation. Summers uses a quote from Gore Vidal, saying “Castro had told her (Lisa Howard) of the efforts by the CIA against him, and it upset her to think that the Kennedy’s had been talking peace while they were also out to do him in. I think all this is why Bobby never really wanted Jack’s assassination investigated. Because they more they dug up, the more quickly they would ask whether Castro had done it to forestall the Kennedy’s. And the Kennedy’s would come to be regarded as American Borgias.” The Warren Commission wasn’t set up to investigate, but to bury. As Mellen suggests.

And…not one mention of the main pivot of the Garrison investigation (still the only court charge brought concerning the assassination), Clay Shaw. The whole Garrison aspect should have been given more space here, I felt.

Anyway, why do people think there was a conspiracy - and therefore not a lone, motiveless gunman and, therefore, we were lied to and, therefore, there was a cover-up? Poll people today, 2014, NSA, Snowden, et al behind them and of course you’ll get an answer in the affirmative. Back then, pre-computers, pre-Internet, pre-hacking, was surely different? However, it was seen as suspicious even then, as the book says “…because President John F. Kennedy was killed during the Cold War, at a time when nuclear war seemed a real and constant threat and in part too, because November 1963 signalled an end to the cozy security of the previous decade, the waning of public trust in authority." The Warren Report was set up with the aim of putting a lid on the conspiracy theories and was supposed to sweep them aside in finding that one man, Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, murdered President Kennedy. But, while on Snowden, Summers mentions the release of documents on the assassination in 1977, noting that the authorities admitted that “'up to 10% of the (Kennedy) file will not be released.'" Then even after the 1992 JFK Records Act there were still some documents withheld, by the FBI amongst other security agencies. Seems clear that their need to avoid scrutiny now, is as valid - for them - as it was then. It makes me wonder why in all the Edward Snowden leaks, nothing has come out about the assassination. I haven't followed the whole Snowdon business in any way even remotely close to closely, so may have misunderstood what info he had access to and leaked. But still…nothing? It can’t have all been ‘rutinely’ or 'accidentally' destroyed, can it?

As I’ve said above, given the thoroughness of Joan Mellen’s book, it is, in a way, hard to see what Summers’ point with re-writing this book was. As I can't think that he came down particularly hard on one theory or another. I think you can probably get out of it what you want. Mellen's book 'Farewell To Justice's aim was to show that there was a conspiracy and that the CIA, in one form or another, were behind it. By changing the name of his book, from ‘Conspiracy’ to the comparatively nondescript ‘not in your lifetime’ and bearing in mind his comments on any possible CIA involvement, it’s as if he is afraid of coming down on one side or the other, for fear of cutting himself off, driving up a blind alley, going out on a limb - and later being proved wrong. If convincing evidence for something else, comes to light. The phrase “not in your lifetime” is used as a means of indicating that either not all the evidence has been made public, or evidence, convincing evidence for one theory or other, is still to come to light. So, he's saying 'these are all the theories - in slightly more than outline form, you make your own mind up, but it could all change if something new turns up at sometime when 'National Security' is not deemed to be in danger from its publication." What Summers himself thinks, I felt was a little hard to determine. If I had to put your money on it, I'd say The Mafia.

The best part of the book, though there are several excellent sections dotted throughout, to be fair, is the look at what happened on the day, at the time and the involvement of the Mafia in the whole thing. He looks at the actual event from all sides and answers all the questions he knows people have raised, for each step of the way. If nothing else, this is worth the admission fee. If you read this on its own, you’d be in no doubt of a conspiracy. My only problem was, I felt Summers then sidestepped the questions he needed to answer after the excellent beginning. It could just be me though, read it and decide for yourself. Me? Oswald was set up to look pro-Castro, by anti-Castro operatives, backed and helped by Mafia figures and deliberately not hindered by elements of the CIA. He was set up to be there on the day and appear guilty, but the killing was actually carried out by (at least) two others.

I've read a tremendous amount of books about November 22, 1963. There are very few books I’d recommend, though this (along with 'Farewell to Justice’ of course), is now going to be one of them. . more


Summers was born in New Haven, Connecticut, on November 30, 1954, into a Jewish family, the son of two economists, Robert Summers (who changed the family surname from Samuelson) and Anita Summers (of Romanian-Jewish ancestry), who are both professors at the University of Pennsylvania. He is also the nephew of two Nobel laureates in economics: Paul Samuelson (brother of Robert Summers) and Kenneth Arrow (brother of Anita Arrow Summers). He spent most of his childhood in Penn Valley, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia, where he attended Harriton High School.

At age 16, [9] he entered Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he originally intended to study physics but soon switched to economics (S.B., 1975). He was also an active member of the MIT debating team and qualified for participation in the annual National Debate Tournament three times. He attended Harvard University as a graduate student (Ph.D., 1982). [10] In 1983, at age 28, Summers became one of the youngest tenured professors in Harvard's history. It was also during this time that Summers was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma. He underwent treatment and has since remained cancer-free. He was a visiting academic at the London School of Economics [11] in 1987. Summers has three children (older twin daughters Ruth and Pamela and son Harry) with his first wife, Victoria Joanne (Perry). [12] [13] In December 2005, Summers married English professor Elisa New, who has three daughters (Yael, Orli and Maya) from a previous marriage. He lives in Brookline, Massachusetts.

Academic economist Edit

As a researcher, Summers has made important contributions in many areas of economics, primarily public finance, labor economics, financial economics, and macroeconomics. Summers has also worked in international economics, economic demography, economic history and development economics. [14] He received the John Bates Clark Medal in 1993 from the American Economic Association. [15] In 1987, he was the first social scientist to win the Alan T. Waterman Award from the National Science Foundation. Summers is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Public official Edit

Summers was on the staff of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan in 1982–1983. He also served as an economic adviser to the Dukakis Presidential campaign in 1988.

Chief Economist at the World Bank Edit

Summers left Harvard in 1991 and served as Vice President of Development Economics and Chief Economist for the World Bank until 1993. [1] [2] [3]

According to the World Bank's Data & Research office (March, 2017), Summers returned to Washington, D.C. in 1991 as the World Bank's Vice President of Development Economics and Chief Economist. As such, Summers played a "key role" in designing strategies to aid developing countries, worked on the bank's loan committee, guided the bank's research and statistics operations, and guided external training programs. [1]

The World Bank's official site also reports that Summer's research included an "influential" report that demonstrated a very high return from investments in educating girls in developing nations. [1]

According to The Economist, Summers was "often at the centre of heated debates" about economic policy, to an extent exceptional for the history of the World Bank in recent decades. [16]

"Dirty industries" controversy Edit

In December 1991, while at the World Bank, Summers signed a memo that was leaked to the press. Lant Pritchett has claimed authorship of the private memo, which both he and Summers say was intended as sarcasm. [17] The memo stated that "the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that. [17] . I've always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly underpolluted." [18] According to Pritchett, the memo, as leaked, was doctored to remove context and intended irony, and was "a deliberate fraud and forgery to discredit Larry and the World Bank." [19] [17]

Service in the Clinton Administration Edit

In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs and later in the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury.

Much of Summers's tenure at the Treasury Department was focused on international economic issues. He was deeply involved in the Clinton administration's effort to bail out Mexico and Russia when those nations had currency crises. [20] Summers set up a project through which the Harvard Institute for International Development provided advice to the Russian government between 1992 and 1997. Later there was a scandal when it emerged that some of the Harvard project members had invested in Russia, and were therefore not impartial advisors. [21] Summers encouraged then-Russian leader Boris Yeltsin to use the same "three-'ations'" of policy he advocated in the Clinton Administration – "privatization, stabilization, and liberalization." [22]

Summers pressured the Korean government to raise its interest rates and balance its budget in the midst of a recession, policies criticized by Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz. [23] According to the book The Chastening, by Paul Blustein, during this crisis, Summers, along with Paul Wolfowitz, pushed for regime change in Indonesia. [24]

Summers was a leading voice within the Clinton Administration arguing against American leadership in greenhouse gas reductions and against US participation in the Kyoto Protocol, according to internal documents made public in 2009. [25]

As Treasury Secretary, Summers led the Clinton Administration's opposition to tax cuts proposed by the Republican Congress in 1999. [26]

During the California energy crisis of 2000, then-Treasury Secretary Summers teamed with Alan Greenspan and Enron executive Kenneth Lay to lecture California Governor Gray Davis on the causes of the crisis, explaining that the problem was excessive government regulation. [27] Under the advice of Kenneth Lay, Summers urged Davis to relax California's environmental standards in order to reassure the markets. [28]

Summers hailed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999, which lifted more than six decades of restrictions against banks offering commercial banking, insurance, and investment services (by repealing key provisions in the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act): "Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," Summers said. [29] "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy." [29] Many critics, including President Barack Obama, have suggested the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis was caused by the partial repeal of the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act. [30] Indeed, as a member of President Clinton's Working Group on Financial Markets, Summers, along with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Arthur Levitt, Fed Chairman Greenspan, and Secretary Rubin, torpedoed an effort to regulate the derivatives that many blame for bringing the financial market down in Fall 2008. [31]

Views on banking regulation Edit

On May 7, 1998, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) issued a Concept Release soliciting input from regulators, academics, and practitioners to determine "how best to maintain adequate regulatory safeguards without impairing the ability of the OTC (over-the-counter) derivatives market to grow and the ability of U.S. entities to remain competitive in the global financial marketplace." [32] On July 30, 1998, then-Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Summers testified before the U.S. Congress that "the parties to these kinds of contract are largely sophisticated financial institutions that would appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counterparty insolvencies." At the time Summers stated that "to date there has been no clear evidence of a need for additional regulation of the institutional OTC derivatives market, and we would submit that proponents of such regulation must bear the burden of demonstrating that need." [33] In 1999 Summers endorsed the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which removed the separation between investment and commercial banks, saying "With this bill, the American financial system takes a major step forward towards the 21st Century." [34]

When George Stephanopoulos asked Summers about the financial crisis in an ABC interview on March 15, 2009, Summers replied that "there are a lot of terrible things that have happened in the last eighteen months, but what's happened at A.I.G. . the way it was not regulated, the way no one was watching . is outrageous."

In February 2009, Summers quoted John Maynard Keynes, saying "When circumstances change, I change my opinion", reflecting both on the failures of Wall Street deregulation and his new leadership role in the government bailout. [35] On April 18, 2010, in an interview on ABC's "This Week" program, Clinton said Summers was wrong in the advice he gave him not to regulate derivatives.

President of Harvard Edit

In 2001, when George W. Bush became President, Summers left the Treasury Department and returned to Harvard as its 27th president, serving from July 2001 until June 2006. [15] He is considered Harvard's first Jewish president, though his predecessor Neil Rudenstine had Jewish ancestry, and received praise from Harvard's Jewish community for his support. [36]

A number of Summers's decisions at Harvard have attracted public controversy, either at the time or since his resignation. [ example needed ]

Cornel West affair Edit

In an October 2001 meeting, Summers criticized African American Studies department head Cornel West for allegedly missing three weeks of classes to work on the Bill Bradley presidential campaign, and complained that West was contributing to grade inflation. Summers also claimed that West's "rap" album was an "embarrassment" to the university. West pushed back strongly against the accusations. [37] "The hip-hop scared him. It's a stereotypical reaction", he said later. West, who later called Summers both "uninformed" and "an unprincipled power player" in describing this encounter in his book Democracy Matters (2004), subsequently returned to Princeton University, where he had taught prior to Harvard University.

Differences between the sexes Edit

In January 2005, at a Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Summers sparked controversy with his discussion of why women may have been underrepresented "in tenured positions in science and engineering at top universities and research institutions".

Summers had prefaced his talk, saying he was adopting an "entirely positive, rather than normative approach" and that his remarks were intended to be an "attempt at provocation." [38]

Summers then began by identifying three hypotheses for the higher proportion of men in high-end science and engineering positions:

  1. The high-powered job hypothesis
  2. Different availability of aptitude at the high end
  3. Different socialization and patterns of discrimination in a search [38]

The second hypothesis, the generally greater variability among men (compared to women) in tests of cognitive abilities, [39] [40] [41] leading to proportionally more males than females at both the lower and upper tails of the test score distributions, caused the most controversy. In his discussion of this hypothesis, Summers said that "even small differences in the standard deviation [between genders] will translate into very large differences in the available pool substantially out [from the mean]". [38] Summers referenced research that implied differences between the standard deviations of males and females in the top 5% of twelfth-graders under various tests. He then went on to argue that, if this research were to be accepted, then "whatever the set of attributes . that are precisely defined to correlate with being an aeronautical engineer at MIT or being a chemist at Berkeley . are probably different in their standard deviations as well". [38]

Summers then concluded his discussion of the three hypotheses by saying:

So my best guess, to provoke you, of what's behind all of this is that the largest phenomenon, by far, is the general clash between people's legitimate family desires and employers' current desire for high power and high intensity, that in the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination. I would like nothing better than to be proved wrong, because I would like nothing better than for these problems to be addressable simply by everybody understanding what they are, and working very hard to address them. [38]

Summers then went on to discuss approaches to remedying the shortage of women in high-end science and engineering positions.

This lunch-time talk drew accusations of sexism and careless scholarship, and an intense negative response followed, both nationally and at Harvard. [42] Summers apologized repeatedly. [43] Nevertheless, the controversy is speculated to have contributed to his resigning his position as president of Harvard University the following year, as well as costing Summers the job of Treasury Secretary in Obama's administration. [44]

Summers's protégée Sheryl Sandberg has defended him saying that "Larry has been a true advocate for women throughout his career" at the World Bank and Treasury. Sandberg described of the lunch talk "What few seem to note is that it is remarkable that he was giving the speech in the first place – that he cared enough about women's careers and their trajectory in the fields of math and science to proactively analyze the issues and talk about what was going wrong". [45]

In 2016, remarking upon political correctness in institutions of higher education, Summers said:

There is a great deal of absurd political correctness. Now, I'm somebody who believes very strongly in diversity, who resists racism in all of its many incarnations, who thinks that there is a great deal that's unjust in American society that needs to be combated, but it seems to be that there is a kind of creeping totalitarianism in terms of what kind of ideas are acceptable and are debatable on college campuses. [46]

Summers' opposition and support at Harvard Edit

On March 15, 2005, members of the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which instructs graduate students in Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences and undergraduates in Harvard College, passed 218–185 a motion of "lack of confidence" in the leadership of Summers, with 18 abstentions. A second motion that offered a milder censure of the president passed 253 to 137, also with 18 abstentions.

The members of the Harvard Corporation, the University's highest governing body, are in charge of the selection of the president and issued statements strongly supporting Summers.

FAS faculty were not unanimous in their comments on Summers. Influential psychologist Steven Pinker defended the legitimacy of Summers's January lecture. When asked if Summers's talk was "within the pale of legitimate academic discourse," Pinker responded "Good grief, shouldn't everything be within the pale of legitimate academic discourse, as long as it is presented with some degree of rigor? That's the difference between a university and a madrassa. There is certainly enough evidence for the hypothesis to be taken seriously." [47]

Summers had stronger support among Harvard College students than among the college faculty. One poll by the Harvard Crimson indicated that students opposed his resignation by a three-to-one margin, with 57% of responding students opposing his resignation and 19% supporting it. [48]

In July 2005, a board member of Harvard Corporation, Conrad K. Harper, resigned saying he was angered both by the university president's comments about women and by Summers being given a salary increase. The resignation letter to the president said, "I could not and cannot support a raise in your salary, . I believe that Harvard's best interests require your resignation." [49] [50]

Support of economist Andrei Shleifer Edit

Harvard and Andrei Shleifer, a close friend and protégé of Summers, controversially paid $28.5 million to settle a lawsuit by the U.S. government over the conflict of interest Shleifer had while advising Russia's privatisation program. The US government had sued Shleifer under the False Claims Act, as he bought Russian stocks while designing the country's privatisation. In 2004, a federal judge ruled that while Harvard had violated the contract, Shleifer and his associate alone were liable for treble damages.

In June 2005, Harvard and Shleifer announced that they had reached a tentative settlement with the US government. In August, Harvard, Shleifer, and the Department of Justice reached an agreement under which the university paid $26.5 million to settle the five-year-old lawsuit. Shleifer was also responsible for paying $2 million worth of damages.

Because Harvard paid almost all of the damages and allowed Shleifer to retain his faculty position, the settlement provoked allegations of favoritism on Summers. His continued support for Shleifer strengthened Summers's unpopularity with other professors, as reported in the Harvard Crimson:

I've been a member of this Faculty for over 45 years, and I am no longer easily shocked," is how Frederick H. Abernathy, the McKay professor of mechanical engineering, began his biting comments about the Shleifer case at Tuesday's fiery Faculty meeting. But, Abernathy continued, "I was deeply shocked and disappointed by the actions of this University" in the Shleifer affair. [51]

In an 18,000-word article "How Harvard lost Russia" in Institutional Investor by David McClintick (January 2006), the magazine detailed Shleifer's alleged efforts to use his inside knowledge of and sway over the Russian economy in order to make lucrative personal investments, all while leading a Harvard group, advising the Russian government, that was under contract with the U.S. The article suggests that Summers shielded his fellow economist from disciplinary action by the University, although it noted that Summers had forewarned Shleifer and his wife Nancy Zimmerman about the conflict-of-interest regulations back in 1996. [51] Summers's friendship with Shleifer was well known by the Corporation when it selected him to succeed Rudenstine and Summers recused himself from all proceedings with Shleifer, whose case was actually handled by an independent committee led by former Harvard President Derek Bok.

Donations to Harvard from Jeffrey Epstein Edit

An article in the Harvard Crimson in 2003, during Summers' tenure as president, detailed a reportedly "special connection" between Summers and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. [52] Epstein pledged to donate at least $25 million to Harvard during Summers's tenure to endow Harvard's Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, and Epstein was given an office at Harvard for his personal use. [53] [54] Epstein otherwise had no formal connection to Harvard. [52] Summers's ties to Epstein reportedly began "a number of years. before Summers became Harvard’s president and even before he was the Secretary of the Treasury." [52] A charity funded by Epstein also donated to the production of a PBS show hosted by Summers's wife and Harvard professor Elisa New. [55]

Winklevoss twins and Facebook Edit

In February 2004, the Winklevoss twins requested a meeting with Summers in order to ask him to intervene on their behalf in an ongoing dispute they had with Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. The Winklevosses believed that Zuckerberg had stolen their idea for a social networking website and launched Facebook on his own, after they had asked him to be a part of their project, then called HarvardConnection. Summers believed that the matter was outside the university's jurisdiction, and advised the twins to take their complaint to the courts. [56]

Resignation as Harvard President Edit

On February 21, 2006, Summers announced his intention to step down at the end of the school year effective June 30, 2006. Harvard agreed to provide Summers on his resignation with a one-year paid sabbatical leave, subsidized a $1 million outstanding loan from the university for his personal residence, and provided other payments. [57] Former University President Derek Bok acted as Interim President while the University conducted a search for a replacement which ended with the naming of Drew Gilpin Faust on February 11, 2007.

Post-Harvard presidency career Edit

After a one-year sabbatical, Summers subsequently accepted Harvard University's invitation to serve as the Charles W. Eliot University Professor, one of 20 select University-wide professorships, with offices in the Kennedy School of Government and the Harvard Business School. [58] In 2006 he was also a member of the Panel of Eminent Persons which reviewed the work of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. He is a member in the Group of Thirty. He also currently serves on the Berggruen Institute's 21st Century Council, and was part of a 2015 Berggruen-organized meeting with Chinese president Xi Jinping. [59] [60]

Business interests Edit

On October 19, 2006, Summers was hired as a part-time managing director of the New York-based hedge fund D. E. Shaw & Co. for which he received $5 million in salary and other compensation over a 16-month period. [61] At the same time Summers earned $2.8 million in speaking fees from major financial institutions, [62] [63] including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers. [64] Upon being nominated Treasury Secretary by President Clinton in 1999, Summers listed assets of about $900,000 and debts, including a mortgage, of $500,000. [63] By the time he returned in 2009 to serve in the Obama administration, he reported a net worth between $17 million and $39 million. [63] He is a former member of the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group. [65] In 2013, Summers became an early angel investor in India's first car rental company, Zoomcar, which was started by his former Harvard Teaching Fellow. [66]

National Economic Council Edit

Upon the inauguration of Barack Obama as president in January 2009, Summers was appointed to the post of director of the National Economic Council. [67] In this position Summers emerged as a key economic decision-maker in the Obama administration, where he attracted both praise and criticism. There had been friction between Summers and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, as Volcker accused Summers of delaying the effort to organize a panel of outside economic advisers, and Summers had cut Volcker out of White House meetings and had not shown interest in collaborating on policy solutions to the economic crisis. [68] On the other hand, Obama himself was reportedly thrilled with the work Summers did in his first few weeks on the job. And Peter Orszag, another top economic advisor, called Summers "one of the world's most brilliant economists." [69] According to Henry Kissinger Larry Summers should "be given a White House post in which he was charged with shooting down or fixing bad ideas." [70]

In January 2009, as the Obama Administration tried to pass an economic stimulus spending bill, Representative Peter DeFazio (D-OR.) criticized Summers, saying that he thought that President Barack Obama is "ill-advised by Larry Summers. Larry Summers hates infrastructure." [71] DeFazio, along with liberal economists including Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, had argued that more of the stimulus should be spent on infrastructure, [72] while Summers had supported tax cuts. [73] In late 2008, Summers and economic advisors for then-President-elect Obama presented a memo with options for an economic stimulus package ranging from $550 billion to $900 billion. [74] According to The New Republic, economic advisor Christina Romer initially recommended a $1.8-trillion package, which proposal Summers quickly rejected, believing any stimulus approaching $1 trillion would not pass through Congress. Romer revised her recommendation to $1.2 trillion, which Summers agreed to include in the memo, but Summers struck the figure at the last minute. [75]

According to the Wall Street Journal, Summers called Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) asking him to remove caps on executive pay at firms that have received stimulus money, including Citigroup. [76]

On April 3, 2009 Summers came under renewed criticism after it was disclosed that he was paid millions of dollars the previous year by companies which he now had influence over as a public servant. He earned $5 million from the hedge fund D. E. Shaw, and collected $2.7 million in speaking fees from Wall Street companies that received government bailout money. [77]

Post-NEC career Edit

Since leaving the NEC in December 2010, Summers has worked as an advisor to hedge fund D. E. Shaw & Co, Citigroup and the NASDAQ OMX Group while resuming his role as a tenured Harvard professor. [63] In June 2011 Summers joined the board of directors of Square, a company developing an electronic payment service, [78] and became a special adviser at venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. [79] He joined the board of person-to-person lending company Lending Club in December 2012. [80] In July 2015 Summers joined the Board of Directors of Premise Data, a San Francisco-based data and analytics technology company that sources data from a global network of on-the-ground contributors. [81] [82]

In April 2016, he was one of eight former Treasury secretaries who called on the United Kingdom to remain a member of the European Union ahead of the June 2016 Referendum. [83]

Summers referred to the United Kingdom's "Brexit" vote on June 23, 2016—which concluded in favor of leaving the European Union—as the "worst self-inflicted policy wound that a country has done since the Second World War". However, Summers cautioned that the result was a "wake up call for elites everywhere" and called for "responsible nationalism" in response to simmering public sentiment. [84]

In June 2016, Summers also wrote, "I believe the risks to the US and global economies of Mr Trump’s election as president are far greater [than passage of Brexit]. If he is elected, I would expect a protracted recession to begin within 18 months. The damage would be felt far beyond the United States." [85]

2020 presidential election Edit

A coalition of progressive groups called on Joe Biden's 2020 presidential campaign to no longer use Summers as an advisor, after reports surfaced that Summers was advising the campaign on economic policy. [86] Progressive groups like the Sunrise Movement and Justice Democrats petitioned the campaign to disavow Summers, saying, "Summers's legacy is advocating for policies that contributed to the skyrocketing inequality and climate crisis we’re living with today." [87] Following the outcry, Summers stated he would not be joining a future Biden administration, in the event that Biden defeated Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election. [88]

In 2013, Summers emerged as one of two leading candidates, along with Janet Yellen, to succeed Ben Bernanke as head of the Federal Reserve System in 2014. The possibility of his nomination created a great deal of controversy with some Senators of both parties declaring opposition. On September 15, Summers withdrew his name from consideration for the position, writing: "I have reluctantly concluded that any possible confirmation process for me would be acrimonious and would not serve the interest of the Federal Reserve, the Administration or, ultimately, the interests of the nation's ongoing economic recovery." [89] [90]

Summers emerged as an early opponent of the macroeconomic policy employed by President Joe Biden, charging the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 as "the least responsible macroeconomic policy we’ve had in the last 40 years." [91] The macroeconomic framework, Summers holds, risks an economic recession and market destabilization. [92]

The 2010 film The Social Network, which deals with the founding of the social networking site Facebook, shows Summers (played by Douglas Urbanski), in his then-capacity as President of Harvard, meeting with Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss to discuss their accusations against Mark Zuckerberg.

In the 2010 documentary Inside Job, Summers is presented as one of the key figures behind the financial crisis of 2007–2008. Charles Ferguson points out the economist's role in what he characterizes as the deregulation of many domains of the financial sector. [93]

In The Simpsons episode "E My Sports" (S30 E17), the character Principal Seymour Skinner looks at a $100 bill and remarks "$100 bill, autographed by Lawrence Summers. Such a carefree signature, before the great recession."


Formation and Cause and Effect (2006-2008) Edit

Digital Summer was formed in 2006 when vocalist and songwriter Kyle Winterstein and guitarist Ian Winterstein enlisted long time friend and bassist Anthony Hernandez to form the core of the band. [2] After a few months, Digital Summer made the addition of Johnmark Cenfield on lead guitar. The band has had a couple different full-time drummers.

The band's first full length release, Cause and Effect, was released on March 8, 2007. “Whatever It Takes,” was the first single and it spent 45 weeks in rotation on Sirus/XM's Octane 20, and got adds from KUPD, [3] WWBN, WFXH, WPBZ, KXTE, KATT, KILO, KXXR, WZBH, WIIL, Cage Rattle Radio, and more. In addition, "Whatever it Takes" was featured as one of the "Top 4 Songs of the Day" for over six weeks straight on 98KUPD. The second single “Disconnect,” also enjoyed similar success with over 40 national adds, Sirus/XM's Octane 20, WRIF, KSHE, and KUPD included.

An acoustic version of "Whatever it Takes" was featured in KUPD's Acoustic Scorcher album released at Phoenix area Best Buy locations. The sold-out disc included 10 tracks recorded on-site at KUPD's End of Summer Scorcher by artists such as Sevendust, Corey Taylor of Slipknot, Five Finger Death Punch, Tantric, Cavo, and Digital Summer.

The week of May 8, 2008 Digital Summer was the featured cover story for the Phoenix New Times. [4]

Following Cause and Effect, the band released the 2 disc EP/DVD set, Hollow, on March 31, 2008. The DVD portion of the set included a music video for the song "Rescue Me". The full video production included a scene of a car accident and featured both friends and co-workers of the band.

Counting the Hours (2009-2010) Edit

Digital Summer issued their second full length album, Counting the Hours, on May 7, 2010. Counting the Hours was recorded in Phoenix with producer Larry Elyea (who previously worked with Jimmy Eat World, Eminem, Adelitas Way), mixed by producer Mike Watts (Dear Hunter, Adelitas Way, Saliva), and features guest performances by Morgan Rose from Sevendust.

The album's first single, "Just Run", was released nationally in early February 2010. In late 2011 the band released the video for "Just Run". The second single, "Hostage", was also released nationally to radio.

Breaking Point and acoustic album and inactivity(2011-present) Edit

Before beginning work on a third album, Kyle and Ian Winterstein also released music under their experimental rock side project called "Tragedy Machine". They released their debut album titled Pacify on June 7, 2011, which contained the 4 EP tracks they had released in 2008 and 11 brand new tracks. In fall of 2011, Digital Summer announced that it had parted ways with guitarist Johnmark "Fish" Cenfield. After auditions were held, on January 26, 2012 it was announced the band chose Jon Stephenson as their new lead guitarist, who joined the band in time to help with recording and writing their third full length album.

Digital Summer had a management deal with In De Goot Entertainment/ McGathy who boasts artists such as Chevelle, Sevendust, Saliva, Shinedown, Puddle of Mudd, Adelitas Way, 10 Years, and many more. However, Digital Summer parted ways with in De Goot in December 2011 to operate under their own label, Victim Entertainment.

Digital Summer used online crowd-sourcing platform KickStarter to involve fans directly in helping fund the recording and release of their new album, titledBreaking Point. They produced a promotional video for the campaign, which featured praise from Rick DeJesus of Adelitas Way, C.J. Pierce of Drowning Pool, and Morgan Rose of Sevendust.

Breaking Point was released August 7, 2012. [5] The lead single off the album, "Forget You", which features Clint Lowery from Sevendust, reached #38 on the Active Rock charts. The album debuted at #13 on iTunes in Rock. On September 10, 2012, an official music video for "Forget You" was released. [6] "Dance in the Fire" was also released as a second single, with an official "tour" music video released on 5 March 2013. [7]

The band toured extensively in support of the album. In July 2012, Digital Summer joined hard rock band 12 Stones on the road for a 27-day tour, spanning across the midwest and east coast. [1] In November 2012, Digital Summer went on tour with Taproot for the Winter Riot Tour through the Midwest. In January 2013, Digital Summer went on a 28 dates tour with heavy rock band Nonpoint that covers the Pacific Northwest, Southwest and parts of the South. In late 2012 it was revealed that the band parted ways with drummer Ben Anderson and would be using fill-in drummers for the remainder of the touring year.

Digital Summer was one of RockRevolt Magazine's "Indie Band of the Week" in February 2013. [8] The full length acoustic album titled After Hours: Unplugged & Rewired was released on October 8, 2013. [9] A music video for the track "This City" was released on January 8, 2014. [10]

What Was The Cause of the Freedom Summer?

By 1964, the civil rights movement was in full swing. The Freedom Riders had spent 1961 riding buses throughout the segregated South, fighting Jim Crow laws that dictated where Black riders could sit, eat, and drink. Martin Luther King, Jr. had given his famous “I Have a Dream” speech at the August 1963 March on Washington as 250,000 people gathered before him at the Lincoln Memorial.

Despite all of this progress, the South remained segregated, especially when it came to the polls, where African Americans faced violence and intimidation when they attempted to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Poll taxes and literacy tests designed to silence Black voters were common. Without access to the polls, political change in favor of civil rights was slow-to-non-existent. Mississippi was chosen as the site of the Freedom Summer project due to its historically low levels of African American voter registration in 1962 less than 7 percent of the state&aposs eligible Black voters were registered to vote.

You've only scratched the surface of Summers family history.

Between 1941 and 2004, in the United States, Summers life expectancy was at its lowest point in 1943, and highest in 2004. The average life expectancy for Summers in 1941 was 38, and 75 in 2004.

An unusually short lifespan might indicate that your Summers ancestors lived in harsh conditions. A short lifespan might also indicate health problems that were once prevalent in your family. The SSDI is a searchable database of more than 70 million names. You can find birthdates, death dates, addresses and more.

Watch the video: Αντονι κουίν - Ενώπιος ενωπίο με τον Χατζηνικολάου 12