I finally got to watch the mini-series, The Kennedys. I don’t know what was so controversial about it – maybe I just know too much about the Kennedy’s. I didn’t learn too much new – it was a surprise to me that Jackie smoked... even when she was pregnant. And got happy juice shots. I knew JFK was all hopped up on pills and had a body that failed him all day, everyday. Is that what the Kennedys didn't want people to know? Didn't change anything for me...

But there was another thing that did surprise me… In this version, the creators suggested that JFK’s philandering was a matter of weakness, not dominance. There was one scene when he admitted to Bobby that it wasn’t even about the sex; He did it just because he was alone and couldn’t sleep. I’m not sure about that. Rich and powerful men generally cheat because they can, not because they need to. I think he did it because he could. The creators of this version also made JFK out to be a bit sheepish overall. Don’t buy that either. You don’t get to be one of the most revered Presidents' of the United States by being sheepish.

Of note: The casting was outstanding – spot on. From Joe Sr. to Rose to Barry Pepper as Bobby. Spot on. Katie Holmes as Jackie showed the only flaw and that was in her dialect in some spots. She sounded like she was from Brooklyn sometimes. But, it wasn’t bad enough to make a difference. And the look of the series was as neat as all the scotch they drank.

One noticeable omission was Teddy. There was absolutely no mention of Teddy at all. No mention of Joan either and Joan and Jackie were quite close. It’s a well known fact that Jackie and Eunice weren’t the best of friends, but, Joan and Jackie were. Teddy also worked on JFK’s presidential election campaign, so, he should have been a part of this story as well. Glaring omission...

It was nice to hear more details about how and where Joe Jr. fit in the picture. The stories usually start at JFK and focus mostly on him, Bobby and Teddy. This version started with Joe and showed his place and interactions with his siblings and Joe Sr. Now had they added Teddy to the story, it would likely have been the most authentic, revealing version to date. The ending could have been better, but, all things considered, this version gets an A from me.

I’ve been into the history of the Kennedys since I was a kid, so, for me, this was just another way to confirm the recurring facts and sift out the ones that don’t jive. But, in all that I know, I think this version is one of the best I’ve seen and would give the casual Kennedy-phile a great true-to-life reveal.

I highly recommend this mini-series. All that BS over getting it on air was stupid. And to the Kennedy family – let the truth be what it is. No family is perfect, not even an American dynasty. At least yours has had a significant impact on the history of the United States…

So, it is my understanding that the highest rated television program for the last 2 weeks has been the Casey Anthony trial. Let me come clean straight-away... I did not follow the antics of this trial because OJ was enough for me... followed by Jean-Benet Ramsay, then the Menedez brothers, then Susan Smith, then Scott Peterson, blah, blah, blah. Stay tuned for the next one...

BUT, having worked in the court system for a few long years, I can’t help but make some observations about this go-round. Now, having only experienced the most obviously available information about this case and avoiding too much detail, my guess is that I still understand more about how this case unfolded than the average person who watched it everyday. Why? Because justice is not blind - rather - justice turns a blind eye to reality. I learned that my first day in court as an intern with Judge Restivo.

Justice in the U-S of A is not about the reality of a situation, its about the facts that fall inside the confines of the law. Notice I said, CONFINES. Though it is now being revealed that most of the jurors thought she was guilty, they were not presented with conclusive - if any - evidence that she killed her daughter. And the law is very narrow. Innocent until proven guilty? NO! FYI - Most of the law enforcement community thinks the opposite; A person is guilty until proven innocent. That’s just the thinking. So, this is a REAL shocker for the law enforcement community. How could she go from guilty to innocent?

No perceptions about what happened... No appearances of what happened... No gut feelings about what happened... just the documented details of what happened. The average person, who has no exposure to the justice/court system in this country won’t be able to make sense of this. Therein lies the problem - what makes sense to you as a human being, won’t be allowed in a trial. It is a disheartening way of doing business, but, the law is very clear about how the process must unfold.

And for the mothers out there - no part of this can make sense. No verdict like this can ever make sense, even given the above explanation of how the system works. A child is a part of you and to lose a part of you doesn’t put you in the mood to hit the clubs. Ever. A part of you dies and I think most mothers look at Casey Anthony and don’t get that. I look at Casey Anthony and don’t get that and I don’t have kids or a womb. THAT makes her guilty to them...

I’m going to forego the explanation of common law and precedent and just say - nothing ever changes about the law. Hundreds of years later, we’re still using the same standards and falling back on what someone else had to say about a similar situation. There is no original thinking in the law and no room for independent interpretation. This is one for a higher being. If you don’t believe in a higher being of some sort - you will just have to suck it up that the bad guy/girl won this round...

SO, what’s going to happen when she gets released in a few days?