HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » WillyT » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

WillyT

Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 72,631

Journal Archives

Ah...Wouldn't It Be Nice ???




JFK - Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination - Defining Liberal...



The Speech: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/JFK-Speeches/Liberal-Party-Nomination-NYC_19600914.aspx


And Again... Fucking Leftist !!!



JFK - Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960


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 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 I'm a "Liberal."

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 view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the 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, in 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, the 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 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.

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 superstate. I see no magic in 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 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 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 only hope in the world today. 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 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.

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 not 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, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

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, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the 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 and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our 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 goodwill 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. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a 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 four more years of stagnation and indifference here 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 -- in many ways as important as any 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, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the 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 it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this 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 1960s.


Link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/jfk-nyliberal/

Screw Ted Cruz... Chris Hayes Is Kcking NSA Ass !!!




How Many Here Love The Fact That We've Gone From Democratic Base... To "Far Left" ???

WOW !!!







I don't love it... but it IS DAMNED INSTRUCTIVE !!!



Serious Question... (And I'm Gonna Take Hell For This) What If....

Obama got out in front of the NSA story by publicly joining Leahy and Wyden for hearings to "fix" the NSA/Patriot Act.






So... I Was Asked An Interesting Question At The Local Watering Hole The Other Day...

A friend asked, "If there were to be a new Church-like Committee to investigate this NSA mess, who would you like to see in charge?"

I responded by saying it would probably have to be Leahy, head of the Judiciary/seniority/etc. Yet many, including me, would love to see it be Wyden... he's earned it.

And another friend pipes up and says, "I'd love to see someone NOT in Congress... Someone TRULY independent..."

And then she says, "Isn't Russ Feingold still a lawyer?"

And... as I was attempting to say, "BRILLIANT !!!"

A couple of ice-cubes made it across the bar-top.








LOL !!!

GLENN GREENWALD GIVES BRITISH GOVERNMENT A RIGHT JOLLY ROGERING, WILL PROBABLY NEVER SHUT UP ABOUT IT
by GARY LEGUM - Wonkette
8/20/13



<snip>

It is no secret that yr Wonkette thinks Glenn Greenwald is a screechy, self-aggrandizing jackwagon whose NSA scoops have been over-hyped and overblown (WE UNDERSTAND THIS MAKES US TERRIBLE LIBERALS HITLER-LOVING FASCISTS WHO WOULD FELLATE DICK CHENEY AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY, BUT PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SELF-RIGHTEOUSLY SNEER AT US IN THE COMMENTS ANYWAY). But even we were wondering what the hell Great Britain thought it was doing here when we first read this story Sunday afternoon:


Goddammit, British authorities. Glenn Greenwald does not need any actual real-world reasons to feed his crusading martyr complex. It is what gets him out of bed every morning! And you idiots gave him one anyway, and he wrote a piece about it, which we had to read, in the interest of journamalism:


Ugh, we hate it when Greenwald makes his egomaniacal threats. We also hate agreeing with him about anything even when he’s being hysterical (which is always). STOP MAKING US AGREE WITH GLENN GREENWALD, YOU LIMEY TWITS.

Except oh, there are a couple of tiny details that Greenwald left out of his piece, and which got filled in later on Sunday night by other news organizations. Like the fact that The Guardian paid for Miranda’s trip. And that he was apparently acting as a courier between Greenwald and Poitras, carrying some of the documents Edward Snowden had leaked to the pair back to Rio, presumably on one of the electronic devices the Brits confiscated. Far from being the innocent spouse of Glenn Greenwald menacingly targeted to send a message, he was actively participating in transporting secret documents that were stolen, and which it is illegal for him to possess.

That Miranda had to even go on this mission at all makes even less sense when you read this New York Times Magazine article about the collaboration between Greenwald and Poitras and a bunch of Guardian reporters and see how much time they have spent together while chasing this story over the last six months. Yet there were still some Snowden documents that they had not shared with each other? Wouldn’t it have made sense to give each other everything when they were together in Hong Kong interviewing Snowden, or at Greenwald’s house in Rio when Poitras spent time there earlier this summer, and thus eliminate the need for a courier to undertake this trip and risk arrest in the first place?

Expertly baited trap, Glenn Greenwald, you evil genius you. Way to fall for it, British authorities. Now Glenzilla gets to inject some fresh energy into a story that had been wilting in the August doldrums and The Guardian gets a burst of web traffic. And we get yelled at for being leg-humping Obamabots. Everybody wins!


Link: http://wonkette.com/526063/glenn-greenwald-gives-british-government-a-right-jolly-rogering-will-probably-never-shut-up-about-it






MUST READ: 'So The Innocent Have Nothing To Fear?' - GuardianUK

So the innocent have nothing to fear?
After David Miranda we now know where this leadsThe destructive power of state snooping is on display for all to see. The press must not yield to this intimidation

Simon Jenkins - The Guardian
Tuesday 20 August 2013 15.30 EDT

<snip>

You've had your fun: now we want the stuff back. With these words the British government embarked on the most bizarre act of state censorship of the internet age. In a Guardian basement, officials from GCHQ gazed with satisfaction on a pile of mangled hard drives like so many book burners sent by the Spanish Inquisition. They were unmoved by the fact that copies of the drives were lodged round the globe. They wanted their symbolic auto-da-fe. Had the Guardian refused this ritual they said they would have obtained a search and destroy order from a compliant British court.

Two great forces are now in fierce but unresolved contention. The material revealed by Edward Snowden through the Guardian and the Washington Post is of a wholly different order from WikiLeaks and other recent whistle-blowing incidents. It indicates not just that the modern state is gathering, storing and processing for its own ends electronic communication from around the world; far more serious, it reveals that this power has so corrupted those wielding it as to put them beyond effective democratic control. It was not the scope of NSA surveillance that led to Snowden's defection. It was hearing his boss lie to Congress about it for hours on end.

Last week in Washington, Congressional investigators discovered that the America's foreign intelligence surveillance court, a body set up specifically to oversee the NSA, had itself been defied by the agency "thousands of times". It was victim to "a culture of misinformation" as orders to destroy intercepts, emails and files were simply disregarded; an intelligence community that seems neither intelligent nor a community commanding a global empire that could suborn the world's largest corporations, draw up targets for drone assassination, blackmail US Muslims into becoming spies and haul passengers off planes.

Yet like all empires, this one has bred its own antibodies. The American (or Anglo-American?) surveillance industry has grown so big by exploiting laws to combat terrorism that it is as impossible to manage internally as it is to control externally. It cannot sustain its own security. Some two million people were reported to have had access to the WikiLeaks material disseminated by Bradley Manning from his Baghdad cell. Snowden himself was a mere employee of a subcontractor to the NSA, yet had full access to its data. The thousands, millions, billions of messages now being devoured daily by US data storage centres may be beyond the dreams of Space Odyssey's HAL 9000. But even HAL proved vulnerable to human morality. Manning and Snowden cannot have been the only US officials to have pondered blowing a whistle on data abuse. There must be hundreds more waiting in the wings – and always will be.

There is clearly a case for prior censorship of some matters of national security. A state secret once revealed cannot be later rectified by a mere denial. Yet the parliamentary and legal institutions for deciding these secrets are plainly no longer fit for purpose. They are treated by the services they supposedly supervise with falsehoods and contempt. In America, the constitution protects the press from pre-publication censorship, leaving those who reveal state secrets to the mercy of the courts and the judgment of public debate – hence the Putinesque treatment of Manning and Snowden. But at least Congress has put the US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, under severe pressure. Even President Barack Obama has welcomed the debate and accepted that the Patriot Act may need revision.

In Britain, there has been no such response...

<snip>

More: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/20/innocent-fear-david-miranda



Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9