[Winstonm]

American University speech (1963)

Quote

What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

I admit tears come to my eyes and a hollow emptiness echoes in my chest when I read this and I mourn for the spirit that was America at her finest and for my youth.

Of perhaps I am simply feeling mortal tonight.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jan 27 2010, 09:56 PM, said:

American University speech (1963)

Quote

What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

I admit tears come to my eyes and a hollow emptiness echoes in my chest when I read this and I mourn for the spirit that was America at her finest and for my youth.

Of perhaps I am simply feeling mortal tonight.

Winston you did notice the budgets under jfk


you do notice he wanted nukes...and rockets and huge nukes and huge rockets...yes.

and add in other.


jfk was not winston.

Let me put it this way..JFK was not a Pacifist.

[kenberg]

When making comparisons, I keep in mind Barbara Stanwyck's words as she was explaining to Henry Fonda about women: The good aren't as good as you think they are, and the bad aren't always as bad, not nearly as bad.

As to The Speech (I assume that this is what prompted the post), I think Mark Shields had it about right. It was a good speech, not a great speech. How, and whether, it will be remembered depends on what happens next. (I think I have paraphrased him reasonably accurately.)

In terms of policy, I think that I am generally on board but I need to think about it. Again from Shields: It was a supermarket of a speech. Shields listed several topics that were addressed, some very briefly. David Brooks commented on some surprising aspects such as eliminating capital gains for small business. I also thought that in many ways it was a conservative speech. Going back to the JFK comparison, I recall a conversation with a conservative friend during the LBJ administration. He was appalled by Johnson, he had voted for Kennedy.

I'm off to play some bridge at the local club, but no doubt we will discuss this further. One more thought for the moment: Just before the speech I mentioned to my wife that usually I have some idea of what to expect. In this case I had no idea at all what the president was about to say.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on Jan 28 2010, 09:01 AM, said:

In terms of policy, I think that I am generally on board but I need to think about it. Again from Shields: It was a supermarket of a speech. Shields listed several topics that were addressed, some very briefly. David Brooks commented on some surprising aspects such as eliminating capital gains for small business. I also thought that in many ways it was a conservative speech.

I liked the speech. Obama clearly gets that entrepreneurial businesses are the lifeblood of the US economy, and that is where the new jobs we need are going to come from. An important part of that is health care reform, but several other of Obama's policies recognize that also.

I watched the republican response also and was struck by how often McDonnell said "I agree with the president."

Obama stuck to his guns about changing the tone of the politics in Washington in order to get things done, directing his remarks to both demcrats and republicans. But, given their recent successes, I doubt that the republicans will do anything but obstruct this year.

And if the democrats in congress can't get anything done by themselves with the huge majorities they have, they will truly have proved themselves useless.

[PassedOut]

In family discussions, I've often maintained that the US would be better off if the president had to square off with his opponents the way the prime minister does in parliamentary systems. At my age, I don't keep up with YouTube, but all three of my twenty-something sons do and they insisted that I watch this: An Open Discussion Across the Aisle.

The first couple of minutes has bad sound quality, but the rest of it is very clear. Obama is answering questions from house republicans at their retreat in Baltimore, and both sides are doing their very best in a civil discussion of the issues. Fascinating stuff. I'd like to see more of the same, and I'd like to see the congressional democrats involved as well.

[mike777]

PassedOut, on Jan 31 2010, 05:11 PM, said:

In family discussions, I've often maintained that the US would be better off if the president had to square off with his opponents the way the prime minister does in parliamentary systems. At my age, I don't keep up with YouTube, but all three of my twenty-something sons do and they insisted that I watch this: An Open Discussion Across the Aisle.

The first couple of minutes has bad sound quality, but the rest of it is very clear. Obama is answering questions from house republicans at their retreat in Baltimore, and both sides are doing their very best in a civil discussion of the issues. Fascinating stuff. I'd like to see more of the same, and I'd like to see the congressional democrats involved as well.

There was an interesting talk chat about this today on tv.


News people from Canada and the UK pointed out that this chat was not like the question period in the UK and Canada. In those chats they are out for blood and have their questions and follow ups lined up.


This event was not set up that way. Also as I understand the camera was only on the President.

You can bet if this is done again, everyone will not be so nice and civil. It will be more like the UK and Canada.

[nigel_k]

We have 'question time' in Parliament in New Zealand. It is not real debate or discussion, instead the opposition ask leading questions of the PM and Cabinet designed to make them look bad and the answers are as brief and useless as the Speaker allows them to get away with.

I think if you don't notify the questions in advance, it's much too hard to get a good answer and too easy to design a question to make someone look bad or incompetent when they can't answer. On the other hand, if you do notify the question in advance, why not just do the whole thing in writing and reduce the opportunity for demagoguery as they now won't get to appear on TV?

[PassedOut]

mike777, on Jan 31 2010, 05:51 PM, said:

There was an interesting talk chat about this today on tv.

News people from Canada and the UK pointed out that this chat was not like the question period in the UK and Canada. In those chats they are out for blood and have their questions and follow ups lined up.

This event was not set up that way. Also as I understand the camera was only on the President.

You can bet if this is done again, everyone will not be so nice and civil. It will be more like the UK and Canada.

I was going to mention that the questions were not so hostile as a prime minister gets from the opposition in parliament. Still, this was a lot more interaction than we usually get to see. I think that if the questions were too hostile, voters in the US would tend to react negatively. In my opinion, voters here are looking for more civility, not less.

[mike777]

PassedOut, on Jan 31 2010, 06:27 PM, said:

mike777, on Jan 31 2010, 05:51 PM, said:

There was an interesting talk chat about this today on tv.

News people from Canada and the UK pointed out that this chat was not like the question period in the UK and  Canada. In those chats they are out for blood and have their questions and follow ups lined up.

This event was not set up that way.  Also as I understand the camera was only on the President.

You can bet if this is done again, everyone will not be so nice and civil. It will be more like the UK and Canada.

I was going to mention that the questions were not so hostile as a prime minister gets from the opposition in parliament. Still, this was a lot more interaction than we usually get to see. I think that if the questions were too hostile, voters in the US would tend to react negatively. In my opinion, voters here are looking for more civility, not less.

Perhaps, you may be correct, lets see if they tune in with more civililty. I have no doubts people poll for more but.....

In any case the media is there for conflict, not niceness. The media is convinced people buy to see conflict not see politicians make nice, in general.