Los Angeles Times: 'Why JFK Still Matters'

Source:Los Angeles Times- President John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) 35th President of the United States (1961-63)

Source:The New Democrat

"This week even Americans who weren’t alive on Nov. 22, 1963, are reading, writing and reflecting about the assassination of the 35th president 50 years ago. In the view of some critics, the fascination with both John F. Kennedy and his assassination is disproportionate and media-driven. We disagree. Despite political and personal weaknesses that were widely acknowledged within a few years of his death, Kennedy was a transformative figure, not just a charismatic celebrity. And his violent death rightly is remembered as a rupture in what had seemed an age of optimism and inexorable progress.

True, much of the adulation for Kennedy during his life and since originated in arguably superficial attributes: his youth, personal attractiveness and sophistication. But his election at age 43 to succeed the 70-year-old Dwight D. Eisenhower represented a generational shift in American leadership that was as much a source of popular excitement as Kennedy’s individual qualities. As he said in his inaugural address, “the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans — born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace.” Kennedy’s Roman Catholicism also made his election historic. Difficult as it may be for younger Americans to conceive, anti-Catholicism was endemic in American society half a century ago, and Kennedy’s election was nearly as dramatic a breakthrough in that era as the election of the first African American president was in this one.

Kennedy was also forward-looking in his policies. On June 11, 1963, the day on which National Guardsmen escorted two black students as they enrolled at the University of Alabama, Kennedy declared that equality for African Americans was a “moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.” He announced that he was asking Congress to enact legislation to ensure equal access to public accommodations. It is true that the Civil Rights Act became law not during Kennedy’s term but during the administration of his less charismatic (but more politically adroit) successor, Lyndon B. Johnson. But Kennedy’s acknowledgment of the urgency of racial equality allowed supporters of the law to portray it as an homage to his memory. 

Was Kennedy a great president? Probably not. He wasn’t even a good one, according to the JFK revisionists who constitute at least as much of an industry as those who mythologize “Camelot.” Yes, they concede, Kennedy deftly defused the Cuban missile crisis with a combination of public resolve and a private openness to compromise — but perhaps the Soviet Union wouldn’t have installed missiles in Cuba in the first place if Kennedy hadn’t approved the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion. It’s a reasonable point.

We also now know that the telegenic husband and father of young children was serially unfaithful to his wife. Yet despite scores of biographies and endless tell-alls, the revisionists never have been able to dispel the Kennedy mystique.

Any assassination of a president is wrenching for the nation, and some of the admiration of JFK is refracted through the trauma of Nov. 22, 1963. But there was a special poignancy to JFK’s passing because of his youth, his optimism and his ability to inspire. It’s neither surprising nor lamentable that he remains a compelling and beloved figure half a century later." 

From the Los Angeles Times

I think a lot of the talk about the assassination of John F. Kennedy 50 years later, has to do with the personal appeal of the man. So I agree with the Los Angeles Times on this, because everyone from center-right Republicans, to far-left Democrats and far-leftists outside of the Democratic Party, have something that they like about the man. 

Conservatives love the fact that Jack Kennedy believed that Americans, as well as American businesses, were overtaxed, even wealthy Americans were overtaxed. JFK was also a staunch anti-Communist and a big believer a large, strong, national defense for America and that we couldn't lose to Russia on anything that's positive. 

Liberals (meaning the real Liberals, like JFK) loved that fact that JFK was forward-thinking (a true Progressive) and believed that government had a role in seeing that everyone had a shot to succeed in life and just need that opportunity to make the best out of life that they can, but that government couldn't do everything for everybody. He was also, perhaps along with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, the strongest proponents of liberal democracy for all Americans. 

Socialists (of far-leftists, if you prefer) loved the fact that JFK talked about peace, even with Russia and that famous peace speech that he gave at American University. Hipster-leftists (as if they're leftists who are not hipsters) loved the fact that JFK was hip or cool, handsome, tall, good-looking, etc, into American pop culture and very familiar with it, had a lot of cool celebrity friends. 

JFK for American politics, was like the hit NBC TV show from the 1970s and 80s called Fantasy Island: there's something for everyone about him and on that island, that everyone can like and admire.

Hail To The Redskins: 'Redskins OT Joe Jacoby Named Semifinalist For 2014 Hall of Fame Class'

Source:Hail To The Redskins- Redskins OT Joe Jacoby, I believe during Super Bowl 26 in 1992

Source:The New Democrat

"Former Washington Redskins tackle Joe Jacoby is a semi-finalist for the Pro Football Hall of Fame for the second straight year. 

Jacoby made the cut when the initial list of 126 nominees was trimmed to 25 modern-era semifinalists announced Wednesday. Jacoby played for the Redskins from 1981 to 1993 and was one of the beloved “Hogs”. If elected, he would join guard Russ Grimm in representing the Hogs in the Hall of Fame. 

The 25 semifinalists include Marvin Harrison, Tony Dungy, Walter Jones and Derrick Brooks, who made the cut in their first year of Hall of Fame eligibility. Jimmy Johnson, Joe Jacoby, Steve Wisniewski, Morten Andersen, Steve Atwater, Jerome Bettis, Tim Brown, Don Coryell, Roger Craig, Terrell Davis, Edward DeBartolo Jr., Kevin Greene, Charles Haley, John Lynch, Karl Mecklenburg, Andre Reed, Will Shields, Michael Strahan, Paul Tagliabue, Aeneas Williams and George Young. 

The list of modern-era semifinalists will be cut to 15 on Jan. 8. They’ll be joined by seniors committee nominees Ray Guy and Claude Humphrey. The select media members who serve as Hall of Fame voters will elect four to seven candidates during a meeting scheduled for Feb. 1, the day before the Super Bowl."  

From Hail To The Redskins 

To be blunt about this: it is about damn time that former Redskins offensive tackle Joe Jacoby went into the Hall of Fame. He should’ve went in with former Redskins offensive guard Russ Grimm together back in 2010. But both of them should’ve been in the Hall of Fame ten-years ago if not sooner. 

Joe Jacoby was one of the top three offensive tackles of the 1980s and his era. And Bengals offensive tackle Tony Munoz and Vikings/Broncos OT Gary Zimmerman are both already in the Hall of Fame. And Big Jac (as he was called) is right there with the top OT’s of this era. 

Jacoby was both a dominant run blocker and pass blocker and a Pro Bowler who was a big part of three Super Bowl champions and four NFC Conference champions. Who without he and Russ Grimm and I would add OT Jim Lachey to this, the Redskins offense wouldn’t of been as dominant as it was. Being able to control the ball on the ground and giving three Super Bowl champion quarterbacks the time They needed to throw the ball down the field to those great Redskins receivers.

American Thinker: Sierra Rayne: 'Big Government & Lower Economic Growth'

Source:American Thinker right-wing populist publication.

Source:The New Democrat

"Between 1800 and 1916, total government expenditures in the United States generally ranged between 2% and 3% of GDP.  There were higher peaks for the War of 1812 (5.1%) and the Civil War (13.8%), but in both cases pre-war government spending levels were re-established within about a decade after the end of the conflict.  Even after WWI, the wartime peak of government spending (24.2% of GDP) declined rapidly to a slightly higher than historical spending base (3%) by the mid-1920s. 

And then in 1930, it began: the long, unrelenting rise in government expenditures up to the current levels of >40% of GDP.  Nearly half of the entire American economy has been effectively nationalized.  As recently as the early 1950s, government expenditures as a percentage of GDP were more than threefold lower than at present.  The effect of the Korean War is barely noticeable in this climb.  WWII saw a rapid mobilization/demobilization of the government-based economy, but the pre-1930 low levels of government spending were never to return.

Gross public debt tells a similar story. Up to the start of WWI, the inter-war public debt minima were between 0% and 3% of GDP. Debt was accumulated in wartime, and eventually paid off. Much like after the Civil War, the WWI debt was being paid off until 1930, when the era of permanent big government began. After that, the debt increased from 16% of GDP up to its current level of >100%. The WWII peak came and went within a couple decades, but the relentless march of big government precluded any chance of returning to the state of effectively zero public debt that had existed less than only a half-century before.

What effect has the era of big government had on economic growth?  To definitively isolate government size effects on economic growth is essentially impossible.  Econometrics, like all other applications of multiple regression techniques in the social and natural sciences, is highly dependent on what dependent variables are chosen in the regression, which are left out, any time lags between variables, and how correlative-causative relationships are interpreted.  But what we can say with certainty is that the era of American big government in the latter half of the 20th century and first part of the 21st century correlates with the lowest period of non-major wartime real per-capita economic growth since 1800. 

Using historical GDP and population data from Christopher Chantrill's invaluable USGovernmentSpending.com database, along with corresponding consumer price index data from The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the following trend of real per-capita GDP in constant 2012 dollars can be constructed... 

You can read the rest of this article at American Thinker. Or not, completely your choice. 

Republicans like to point to the 1980s as their utopia when it comes to economic growth in the American economy. Even though the Federal Government grew under President Ronald Reagan and the Republican Senate that he had for the first 6 years of his presidency, to deal with the Cold War, as well as the so-called War On Drugs, and rising crime in America. 

Mainstream Democrats (meaning center-right and center-left) like to point to the 1990s as their utopia for economic growth in the American economy. Even though the Federal Government shrunk under President Bill Clinton and the one Democratic Congress (House and Senate) that he had his first two years and the 3 Republican Congress's that he had during his last 6 years. The government shrunk, the budget was balanced, because the Cold War ended and America wanted to pay off its budget deficit. to deal with rising inflation and interest rates from the early 1990s. 

It's one think to say that the American economy would be better off with a smaller Federal Government. The question is: how do you get there? 

You don't see any Republicans calling for gutting the defense budget, and eliminating Medicare, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicaid, etc. Talking points sound cool in partisan debates. But to govern, you have to live and operate in the real world and be able to accept and deal with reality.

Leonard P. Liggio: 'Classical Liberalism vs. Socialism vs. Conservatism'

Source:Libertarianism.Org- with a look at Leonard P. Liggio.

Source:The New Democrat

"Leonard Liggio is currently the Executive Vice President of Academics at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a Distinguished Senior Scholar at the Institute for Humane Studies, and a Research Professor at George Mason University’s School of Law. 

In this 1985 lecture given at the second world conference of the Libertarian International, Liggio outlines the history of the classical liberal movement in the Western world, starting in the Middle Ages and progressing through to the modern era. He contrasts this with the rise of statism, socialism, and later, conservatism." 

From Libertarianism.Org 

"Leonard Liggio is currently the Executive Vice President of Academics at the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, a Distinguished Senior Scholar at the Institute for Humane Studies, and a Research Professor at George Mason University's School of Law." 

In this 1985 lecture given at the second world conference of the Libertarian International, Liggio outlines the history of the classical liberal movement in the Western world, starting in the Middle Ages and progressing through to the modern era. He contrasts this with the rise of statism, socialism, and later, conservatism." 

Source:Libertarianism.Org

From Libertarianism.Org

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie & Jonathan Rauch: '20 Years of Political Correctness'

Source:Reason Magazine- an anti-free speech rally against author Salmon Rushdie.

Source:The New Democrat

"The great advantage of a society that embraces robust and often-angry debate, "is not that it does not make mistakes," says Jonathan Rauch, "it's that it catches mistakes very, very quickly." For Rauch, such dialogue is at the heart of what he calls the "liberal science" of producing and refining knowledge. 

A National Magazine Award-winning journalist and author, Rauch's path-breaking study of political corrrectness, Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought, has just been released in a 20th-anniversary edition by the Cato Institute. The new version includes an introduction by George Will and a powerful afterword by Rauch about how calls for censorship and regulation of speech have changed over the past two decades. 

Nick Gillespie sat down with Rauch to discuss why free speech cannot and should not be abridged, even when it causes pain and discomfort. Rauch talks about how the weak defense of Salman Rushdie after receiving Islamic death threats radicalized his views and the inspiration he draws from figures such as Frank Kameny, a pioneering gay rights activist who never called for the censoring of hate speech."  

From Reason Magazine 

I’m not a fan of political correctness myself, because I am a Liberal not because I’m not a Liberal. I’m against all racial and ethnic slurs and all other types of slurs that try to paint one group of people as they are all the way. But again as a Liberal I believe in the First Amendment and the ability for people to speak freely, as long as they aren’t threatening or libeling people in a negative way or inciting violence in public. And those are really the only exceptions we have to our First Amendment in the United States.

Just because people have negative, bigoted and ignorant views about others, doesn’t mean they do not have a right to express those opinions. As long as they aren’t calling for those people to be harmed physically or economically in any way. 

If you really are a Liberal, you believe in the First Amendment and are in favor of it. And you do not believe in these things, you are not a Liberal. Because liberalism is about one’s ability to speak freely and assemble in public and in private. And you take away free speech, you do not have much if any remaining of what can be called a liberal democracy. Because you are taking people’s freedom away from them.

So when I hear these political speech codes from people who are supposed to be on the Left, because someone or a group of people are saying things that these leftist groups find offensive, because it offends people they support, generally racial or religious minorities, or political minorities on the Far-Left, like Communists and Socialists: One, I disagree with them because we all as Americans including the Far-Left have the First Amendment right to express ourselves and have our own opinions. Including the Far-Left and Far-Right.

Two, it gives me the impression that some at least on the Far-Left do not believe in free speech, or at least free speech that they disagree with. But the other thing that gets me as a Liberal is when I hear supporters of what is called the political correctness movement, people who are supposed to be Liberals, when of course they are not, because they believe in a form of fascism: "You can say what you want and believe in what, until you offend us. And that is when we are going to try to shut you up." And there is nothing actually liberal about that.

It is pretty simple: if you are a Liberal, you believe in free speech and the First Amendment. And if you do not believe in these things, you are not a Liberal. But perhaps a Fascist either from the Far-Left or Far-Right. 

Bigotry is an awful thing and in many cases illegal in the United States when it is put into action. But that doesn’t mean Americans do not have a right to be stupid. It just means they do not always have a right to act on those stupid beliefs when they hurt innocent people with them. Like denying people jobs based on race, ethnicity, gender. (To use as examples) The cure for stupidity in America is good education, including more free speech. Not trying to lock everything that you don't like about America, including other Americans into some closet hoping no one ever hears from or sees them again. 

American Thinker: Jim Yardley: 'A Different View of Paternalism'

Source:American Thinker right-wing-populist publication.

Source:The New Democrat 

"The word "paternalism" has been bandied about concerning the various pathetic defenses of Barack Obama's now infamous claim that "If you like your health care, you can keep it. Period."

Well, yes, you can actually keep the health care you had before Obamacare was crammed through Congress. The caveat that was always unstated by the president, by any and all Democrats in Congress or the administration and by the mainstream media was that you could keep it if, and only if, it complied with every aspect of the new (Orwellian) Affordable Care Act.

Certain people who might generally be viewed as conservative have noted with mild horror that this is governmental paternalism.

Betsy McCaughey, in her article published at Accuracy in Media's website, says:

Obama's pledge never matched up to the actual law. The law epitomizes "Washington knows best" paternalism. Everyone must have the one-size-fits-all health plan designed by "experts."

Paternalism is, in their view, clearly evidence that the government thinks that you are not capable, or intellectually competent, of making a rational evaluation of what is really necessary for your own well-being.

However, it should be noted that like cancer, there are stages to paternalism. A common dictionary definition of the term would be... 

From the American Thinker 

There are two forms of paternalism at least as I see it: one that obviously comes from our parents as shocking as that may sound and I believe the only people it should come from. And as annoying as and in some cases positive parental paternalism may sound, our parents at least tend to have our best interests at heart even when they go too far.

But then there is what I call governmental paternalism whether it comes from governmental laws, or proposals to create new paternalistic laws and they are basically built around the notion even if they are done with the best intentions, that government knows best what the people themselves need for their own good. 

Things like proposals to outlaw homosexual activity or pornography from the Far-Right. To having the Federal Government regulate marriage in the United States.

Then there are paternalistic proposals from the Far-Left in trying to regulate what people can eat, drink or smoke for our own good. Because paternalists on the Far-Left believe they know best what people should be eating, drinking and smoking. 

And as much as right-wingers especially those right-wingers who may have some governmental paternalistic views when it comes to social issues, like to label the Affordable Care Act as paternalistic, it is not. Because what it does with the minimum health insurance requirement is to say that everyone is required to have enough health insurance to meet their own individual health care needs.

So people in America can’t past their own health care costs on to other people. The Affordable Care Act doesn’t require people to live healthy and take care of themselves. 

What the ACA says is that we are all responsible for our own health care costs at least those of us who can afford our own health insurance. And for those of us who choose to live unhealthy, they can still do that, but they won’t be able to pass the costs of their unhealthy decisions on to other people.