Civility is not a sign of weakness . . . . fifty years ago today:
Ask not what YouTube can do . . .
The latest from america
This week on “Inside the Vatican,” Colleen and Gerry discuss new Vatican guidelines allowing gay men to enter seminaries if they commit to celibacy, as expected of all seminarians regardless of sexual orientation
The fall resulted “in a contusion to the right forearm, without any fracture,” but “the arm has been immobilized as a precautionary measure,” the Vatican stated.
A lead researcher on the report by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate believes the findings represent the Catholic Church’s superlative commitment to transparency.
A Homily for the Second Sunday in Ordinary Time, by Terrance Klein
“Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic ‘what your country can do for you’ implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, ‘what you can do for your ‘country’ implies the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary.”
http://cafehayek.com/2011/01/chicago-and-camelot.html
As in refered to in this liink, another way to translate Kennedy's famous line is: “Ask not what I can do for you – ask what you can do for me.”
ANd government is in the service of the few now, not the many. And it's doing its job well, although not as well as the Republicans would like. We have to destroy Social Security and any service of the people. The Democrats are a pathetic counterpoint if they even are one.
This is the kind of ad hominem rhetoric that does not further a discussion or conversation: "Perhaps the part of the brain that allows these feelings didn't develop in Friedman's Hemispheres"
You can disagree with Freidman or me. Just state your argument.
Peace,
Joe
I can't resist this story about Friedman upon his death a few years ago:
Art Hilgart, a retired industrial economist, recalls hearing Friedman lecture in 1991 and recommend the destruction of Medicare, welfare, the postal system, Social Security and public education. The audience was dumbfounded.
Finally, a brave young woman asked what this would mean for poverty. "There is no poverty in America," Friedman instructed. A clear voice arose from the back of hall: "Bull@#!!" The audience cheered wildly.
Are you scolding me for pointing out an ad hominem attack?
The problem with Friedman was exactly this: he didn't back up his assertion with "data" but, rather, helped to usher in "micro economics" in which the workings of the economic structures were reduced largely to theoretical models of individual behavior. Who could suppress their laughter at the absurdity of his claim that there is no poverty in the USA?
You quoted Friedman and he wasn't even talking about economics. He was distorting Kennedy's statement into something he never said. Sorry, but I heard the speech live on television and I know what it meant. The worst thing was that it unrealistically raised my hopes for this country. And where are we after 30 years of Friedman's economic philosophy in action? Pottersville.
BTW, I'm no Kennedy worshipper. But at least he didn't start WWIII.
That is no great surprise. But, then, most of what Friedman had to say and recommend was far from flattering to the American public as a whole.