Sign up for Emails from Sam-
I promise not to sell or give your email address to any other person, org. or entity!
Support our Sponsor
Kevin ©'s blog
Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960
Submitted by Kevin © on Tue, 11/23/2010 - 1:57am.This is a transcription of this speech made for the convenience of readers and researchers. The texts for this famous speech available in the files of the John F. Kennedy Pre-Presidential Papers here at the John F. Kennedy Library are partial and diverge widely from the speech as it is commonly known. We have therefore opted to feature the text as it was published in the volume of presidential campaign speeches that was ordered to be printed by Congress after the 1960 election.
Dr. Niebuhr, Professor Hayes, Governor Stevenson, Mr. Meany, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, I accept your nomination, and I am proud of it. [Applause.] I am proud to be the only candidate in 1960 with the nomination of two political parties, although I'm not certain how many tickets are now headed in how many States by Senator Goldwater. [Laughter.]
We had an interesting convention at Los Angeles, and we ended with a strong Democratic platform which we called the rights of man. The Republican platform has also been presented. I do not know its title, but it has been referred to as the power of positive thinking. [Laughter and applause.] I do not regard the title of liberal as an honorary degree; I regard it as a license to preach the gospel of liberalism across this country. [Applause.] But I think you know why this title could be conferred on my candidacy. Just before you met, a weekly news magazine with wide circulation, featured a section entitled, "Kennedy's Liberal Promises," and described me, and I quote, "as the farthest-out liberal Democrat around," unquote. While I am not certain of the "beatnik" definition of "farthest-out," I am certain that this was not intended as a compliment. [Laughter.] And last week, as further proof of my credentials, a noted American clergyman was quoted as saying that our society may survive in the event of my election, but it certainly won't be what it was. I would like to think he was complimenting me, but I'm not sure he was. [Laughter and applause.] But a more serious challenge to my credentials, this time as a Democrat, was issued in Dallas, Tex. In his address to a large gathering of Texas Republicans, and there are no purer breed anyplace in the United States [laughter], Mr. Nixon complained that what he called the party of Schlesinger, Galbraith, and Bowles was not the party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Wilson. I do not agree, but I have no intention of issuing a similar challenge to my opponent's credentials; for I know full well that the party of Nixon, Dirksen, and Goldwater is the party of Hoover, Harding, Coolidge, McKinley, and the rest. [Applause.]
The final proof is the old political adage that you can tell a friend by the enemies that he makes; and by this standard, you and I are the closest of friends. For Mr. Nixon and Mr. Dirksen and Mr. Mundt and Mr. Goldwater don't like my liberal policies, I'm glad to say, any more than they do yours. They are fighting a rear guard action against the 20th century, and they fear that our time is coming and theirs is going. I do not mean to say that the fight is wholly between the Democratic and the Republican Parties. Those of you who are here tonight are proof of the fact that some of the best friends that the Democrats have are not in the Democratic Party. [Applause.] I think in November that some of them may be in the Republican Party, but I hold out no hope at all for the vast and impressive number of Republicans who suddenly, just before election time - those who are running for office - suddenly begin to sound like true Lincolns.
Eight years ago on this occasion, Adlai Stevenson called this quadrennial outburst of affection "that pause in the real Republican occupation known as the 'Liberal Hour.'" And he added, "It should never be confused," and he was right, "with any period when Congress is in session." [Laughter and applause.]
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, if by a "Liberal," they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties - someone who believes that we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]
But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.
In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:
I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. [Applause.]
I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.
Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. [Applause.] For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]
Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city and only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.
Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit [applause] and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961 [applause].
Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, who were driven by longing for education for their children and for their children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.
Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle [applause] and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our own day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than good will missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.
In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."
And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. [Applause.] Our opponents would like the people to believe that in the time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue 4 more years of stagnation and indifference at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.
This is an important election. This is an important election - in many ways as important as any in this century - and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort.
The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, of expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope. [Applause.]
I think it is our task to recreate that same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.
Some pundits are saying that it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. [Applause.] I say it is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960's. Thank you.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/S...
WSJ - Health Reform Passes the Cost Test
Submitted by Kevin © on Tue, 03/09/2010 - 1:26pm.Many people are worried that the health-care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats will fail to bend the "cost curve." A number of commentators are urging no votes because of this, and Republicans have asked the president to start health reform over, focusing squarely on the issue of cost reduction.
These calls overlook the actual legislation. Over the past year of debate, 10 broad ideas have been offered for bending the health-care cost curve. The Democrats' proposed legislation incorporates virtually every one of them. Here they are:
• Form insurance exchanges. These would help curb underwriting and inefficient marketing practices that raise costs in the small-group and individual insurance markets. This is addressed in all the House and Senate bills, and the president's proposal. Grade: Full credit.
• Reduce excessive prices, including those of supplemental plans enrolling Medicare beneficiaries. The president's proposal reduces these Medicare Advantage overpayments and others to different providers, even in the face of Republican claims that reducing such overpayments is tantamount to rationing care for seniors. Grade: Full credit.
• Moving to value-based payment in Medicare. Both Democrats and Republicans have called for moving from a system where volume drives reimbursement to one where value drives reimbursement. The president's proposal includes virtually every idea offered for doing this. Grade: Full credit.
• Tax generous insurance plans. Health-insurance benefits are excluded from income taxation, providing incentives for excessively generous insurance. Many economists have proposed capping the tax exclusion to reduce these incentives. The president's proposal taxes some of the most generous policies, though it has deferred the date by which these taxes take effect. Grade: Partial credit.
• Empower an independent Medicare advisory board. Interest-group politics intrudes too deeply within the mechanics of Medicare policy, raising program costs and hindering efforts to improve care. Despite powerful opposition, the president proposes this independent board and a process for fast-tracking such recommendations through Congress. Grade: Full credit.
• Combat Medicare fraud and abuse. The administration has started an active task force to combat these problems. Other ideas to reduce fraud and abuse were presented at the recent health-care summit, and were incorporated in the president's proposal. Grade: Full credit.
• Malpractice reform. Defensive medicine is a small but important driver of medical spending. The reform proposal makes some headway, encouraging states to experiment with alternative mechanisms to reduce malpractice burdens. More could be done—for example, specialized malpractice courts and a safe harbor for physicians practicing evidence-based medicine—but the president's proposal makes a start. Grade: Partial credit.
• Invest in information technology. Many studies suggest savings in the tens of billions of dollars from IT investment. The stimulus bill passed a year ago contains funds to wire the medical system over the next few years, and the administration is supplementing this with significant funds to analyze the comparative effectiveness of different treatments—even in the face of "death panel" claims. Grade: Full credit.
• Prevention. The president's proposal includes significant public-health investments, provides new incentives for physicians to focus on preventive and chronic care, and opens Medicare to finding new ways of supporting prevention. The only area of weakness is the lack of a junk food tax or tax on sugar sweetened beverages. Grade: Partial credit.
• Create a public option. A public insurance option would provide competition for insurers in areas that are nearly a monopoly and provide a path for reforms in Medicare to expand readily in the under-65 population. The public option was eliminated because of Republican opposition, however. Grade: No credit.
So reform gets full credit on six of the 10 ideas, partial credit on three others, and no credit on one. The area of no credit (a public option) is because Republicans opposed the idea. One area receives only partial credit because of Democratic opposition (malpractice reform) and two other areas reflect general hesitancy to increase taxes (taxing Cadillac plans and taxing drivers of obesity).
Why is reform viewed so negatively? In part, it may reflect the perfect being the enemy of the good. If the only passing grade is 10 out of 10, then reform clearly fails. But given where the Republican Party is on a public option, no reform will get a passing grade. If both parties were willing to raise taxes and Republicans negotiated malpractice reform for their overall support, we could probably get a nine out of 10.
Reform is also viewed negatively because official scorekeepers do not believe anything on this list other than reducing prices will save much money. The Congressional Budget Office has consistently estimated that policies built around changing incentives and thus encouraging more efficient care will not have any effect on cost trends. My own calculations, mirrored by other observers and a host of business and provider groups, suggest that the reforms will save nearly $600 billion over the next decade and even more in the subsequent one.
Of course, no one knows precisely how much medical spending increases will moderate. But one cannot doubt the commitment to try. What is on the table is the most significant action on medical spending ever proposed in the United States. Should we really walk away from that?
Mr. Cutler is a professor of economics at Harvard University.
Save Democracy
Submitted by Kevin © on Fri, 01/22/2010 - 1:16am.The Supreme Court stabbed Democracy this morning. I was there; I saw it happen. I brought our petition with me -- your signatures -- and presented them to the Court. Now it's time to act.
We have filed six bills to reverse this assault, the "Save Our Democracy" package. Sign this petition today, and show your support for saving our democracy. Together, we will move these bills forward and prevent the sale of our government to the highest bidder.
PETITION TEXT
I support the "Save Our Democracy" Package:
We cannot have a government that is bought and paid for by huge multinational corporations. We need a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Friday's Sex News 01-01-10
Submitted by Kevin © on Sat, 01/02/2010 - 12:30am.- Porn week vacations
Aimed mainly at single men, Porn Week is an opportunity for people to participate in a porn shoot - Naked people at work advert
British snack company Walker crisps, has produced a TV advert featuring a naked gardner, postman and mechanic. - The 2009 year of sex
"America Unzipped" author Brian Alexander looks back at sex in 2009, from furries to kinky political scandals to the sex enhancer of the year - How mating influences shopping
"Our goal was to see how thinking about mating influences people's decisions about spending and giving" [more] - The best sex toy of 2009
Liz Langley awards the Ramsey Rabbit with her choice of the year's best sex toy
- The Top 10 sex scandals of the year
Freya Petersen reminds us of the people who have made the headlines for the wrong reasons. - The best and worst sex of 2009
Sex educator Dr Petra Boynton summarises some of the sex stories in the news in 2009 - The big O moments of the last 10 years
Kasmin Fernandes sums up moments that each year of the last decade climaxed on - Vaginal corona makes 2009 word list
The Swedish Language Council has added slidkrans (vaginal corona) to its list of official Swedish words [more] - Sex tapes of the decade
From Paris Hilton to Colin Farrell to Gene Simmons are just some of the celebrities who performed for us with nothing to hide
- Is Canadian sex creepy?
How the Canadians portray sex in their movies may provide an insight into how the people view sex - The porn star of the year
The winner of the 2009 Sexaminer Award for Porn Star of the Year, is Sasha Grey - Happy Birthday Kasadie
Congratulations to Kasadie, the web site for swingers, who celebrate their first anniversary - Spending Xmas with a female robot
Inventor Le Trung spent Xmas with his personal robot lover, built for $50,000 - A third of seniors sexually active
A third of senior citizens aged over 65, have sex at least one a month
- Why orchids use sexual trickery
New research suggests that orchid plants which produce flowers that look like female insects, leads to a more efficient pollinating system - The year's top 10 sex scandals
From Tiger Woods to David Letterman - How and why men fake orgasm
Men fake orgasm too. Here's why, and how - Would you swap partners?
A survey has found that 62% of Americas have never considered swapping partners, and of those that have, two-thirds said it was because they wanted to try something naughty - There are 6 types of cheater
Dr. Doug Weiss, the president of the American Association for Sex Addiction Therapy, describes the six kinds of cheaters
- Naked sushi anyone?
Some consider eating sushi from the body of a naked woman, more artsy than erotic - My mother's 80-year-old boyfriend
Advice is given to a family whose 78-year-old widowed mother's new boyfriend suddenly appeared in the kitchen in his dressing gown - Young adults foggy over sex
Young adults between 18 and 21, while aware of contraceptions, are slightly foggy over its use - Top 10 Republican sex scandals of the decade
From anti-gay politicians caught with men, to family-values crusader bragging about their sexual conquests
Top Ten Videos of 2009: Nat Geo News's Most Watched
Submitted by Kevin © on Mon, 12/14/2009 - 3:50am.With the exception of an eclipse and volcano "spiders," the stars of National Geographic News's most popular video presentations were a decidedly deep lot—hopping fish, countertop "sea monsters," underwater eruptions, and more.
Santana - Corazon Espinado
Submitted by Kevin © on Sun, 11/08/2009 - 8:51pm.Santana - Corazon Espinado
Conservative Re-write the Bible Project - Bible is too liberal
Submitted by Kevin © on Tue, 10/06/2009 - 11:12am.
Liberal bias has become the single biggest distortion in modern Bible translations. There are three sources of errors in conveying biblical meaning:
- lack of precision in the original language, such as terms underdeveloped to convey new concepts introduced by Christ
- lack of precision in modern language
- translation bias in converting the original language to the modern one.
Of these three sources of errors, the last introduces the largest error, and the biggest component of that error is liberal bias. Large reductions in this error can be attained simply by retranslating the KJV into modern English.[1]
As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:
[2]
-
- Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
- Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
- Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level
[3] - Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;
[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle". - Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";
[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census - Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
- Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
- Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
- Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
- Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."
Thus, a project has begun among members of Conservapedia to translate the Bible in accordance with these principles. The translated Bible can be found here.
