jfk « WordPress.com Tag Feed

Dead or Alive?

Kaley Kalil — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:22:58 +0000

So.... last night a friend and I were waiting in our car to get into the drive-in movie theater. We were listening to the radio and talking about music.

A song by Tupac came on. The discussion led to the topic of famous people that Americans differ on whether are alive or dead. Tupac, Elvis... This further led to conspiracy theories such as the one surrounding JFK's death.

Well... another conspiracy theory I mentioned was how for a little while many Americans thought Obama was dead. My friend wasn't following. He may be Lebanese, but he damn well knows enough about the presidential candidates to have heard something like this. He didn't get it.

I continued. "Yeah, you know. For awhile there Al-Qaeda was putting out videos stating that Obama had been killed. They were trying to fool America."

He started laughing......... "Obama? Obama!! Nooooo, crazy.. You mean Osama! Osama bin laden, not Obama!"

[caption id="attachment_182" align="alignleft" width="74" caption="Osama bin Laden"][/caption] [caption id="attachment_183" align="alignright" width="64" caption="Barack Obama"][/caption]

Ohhhhh my gosh, I was SO embarrassed. Did I really just confuse our possible future president with the man who attacked our country on September 11th? Wow. That's awful.

Then I started thinking, "There's no way I'm the first person to make this mistake. Was an honest mistake."

Nope. I'm NOT the first. I typed in "Obama bin laden" into Google and many pictures such as this one popped right up:

I don't know if this makes me feel better or not.... :-p

Great links: Is Tupac dead???

Is Elvis dead or alive?

JFK Conspiracy Theories

Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?

500!!

bucks1414 — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:31:32 +0000

We are halfway to our goal of having 1,000 views on YouTube as quickly as possible. These are small numbers in a big world, but still, there's nothing like your first comma when you rock for Obama.

Fear and Loathing in Washington The Million Pound Shithammer.

hstbooks — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:21:38 +0000

With the 2008 election just around the corner, Barack Obama and John McCain are getting ready to slug it out in their last debate on Wednesday. For me an election with no incumbent is always worth following because there is always the hope that whoever is elected will bring a freshness and pride to the White House. Since 1860 there has been 14 elections where there was no incumbent, out of these 14 elections the Republicans have won 12. The only ones they didn't win were in 1884 when Grover Cleveland won against James G. Blaine by .3 of a percentage point, and 1960 when John F. Kennedy beat Richard Nixon by .1 of a percentage point. So if we look at those stats it would seem Obama has his work cut out although he has a lead in the polls, though as we all know the the only poll that matters is the one on November 4th.

In the excerpt below that JR sent to me, Hunter talks about the "youth vote" or lack of same. I think these days the youth vote is taken a bit more seriously by the campaign managers then it was in the 60s and 70s. I personally feel that if the youth does get out there and vote it will be to Obama's benefit and maybe he can put pay to the Republican rule over the non incumbent winning streak.

This is an excerpt from RS 101 "Fear & Loathing in Washington by Hunter S. Thompson, subtitled "The Million Pound Shithammer"

"...These are the 25 million or so new voters between 18 and 25 - going, maybe, to the polls for the first time - who supposedly hold the fate of the nation in the palms of their eager young hands. According to the people who claim to speak for it, this "youth vote" has the power to zap Nixon out of office with a flick of its wrist. Hubert Humphrey lost in '68 by 499,704 votes - a minuscule percentage of what the so-called "youth vote" could turn out in 1972.

But there are not many people in Washington who take this notion of the "youth vote" very seriously. Not even the candidates. The thinking here is that the young people who vote for the first time in '72 will split more or less along the same old lines as their parents, and that the addition of 25 million new (potential) voters means just another sudden mass that will have to be absorbed into the same old patterns...just another big wave of new immigrants who don't know the score yet, but who will learn is soon enough, so why worry? Why indeed? The scumbags behind this thinking are probably right, once again - but it might be worth pondering, this time, if perhaps they might be right for the wrong reasons. Almost all the politicans and press wizards who denigrate the "so-called youth vote" as a factor in the '72 elections have justified their thinking with a sort of melancholy judgement on "the kids" themselves. "How many will even register?" they ask. "And even then - even assuming a third of the possibles might register, how many of those will actually get out and vote?"

The implication, every time, is that the "youth vote" menace is just a noisy paper tiger. Sure, some of these kids will vote, they say, but the way things look now, it won't be more than ten percent. That's the colleges; the other ninety percent are either military types, on the dole, or working people - on salary, just married, hired into their first jobs. Man, these people are already locked down, the same as their parents.
That's the argument...and it's probably safe to say, right now, that there is not a single presidential candidate, media guru or backstairs politics wizard in Washington who honestly believes the "youth vote' will have more than a marginal, splinter-vote effect on the final outcome of the 1972 presidential campaign.
These kids are turned off from politics, they say. Most of 'em don't want to hear about it. All they want to do these days is lie around on water beds and smoke that goddamn marrywanna...yeah, and just between you and me, Fred, I think it's probably all for the best..."

Advocacy On An Appalachian Afternoon

ohiojournal — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 02:24:06 +0000

Guysville, Ohio

[caption id="attachment_363" align="aligncenter" width="604" caption="Les, giving a hoot and a holler for Obama and Biden"][/caption]

Ted Bernard, the host of of today's Barbecue For Obama, said to me, "Push the economic issues."

You bet. I can do that.

Then on the two-hour drive to this Ohio/West Virginia border area, what Ted Bernard meant dawned on me. Appalachia, one of the poorest regions of the country, has been responding for years to the Republican siren song of guns, god, and gays while the GOP serviced the superrich at their expense.

So, with everyone's political sensibilities shaken by deregulated robber barons, I tried to push the issue hard, starting with health care.

McCain, in response to a question by Tom Brokaw, said affordable health care is a "responsibility." Code for, "It's up to you, Jack. And if you can't cut it, tough." Obama, bless him, said, "It's a right." The god-given right of every American man, woman and child to have health care at least as good as John McCain gets as a U.S. senator.

[caption id="attachment_433" align="alignleft" width="200" caption="Bakin' for Obama: Working for change, one cookie at a time. By WORD (Women Openly Reclaiming Democracy)"][/caption]

Thanks to the mainstream media, this chasm between the candidates has barely been noticed. It gets an overwhelming response every time I mention it.

If Obama breaks through in Ohio's part of Appalachia--a broad geographic and hard-scrabble cultural region stretching from southern Pennsylvania through West Virginia, eastern Ohio, Kentucky and beyond--it's lights out for McCain, Palin and the Republicans.

However, it remains a very open question. Maybe we'll take Ohio anyway. But I remember Bobby Kennedy, damnit, and I want to make inroads into this region because my blood boils when I see neocon manipulation. (You can still find a picture of JFK, RFK and Jesus Christ on the walls of a lot of homes in the region. In the old days, it was just two, Christ and FDR.)

Give a President Obama four years, I say, and he'll transform this region for a generation.

I told this audience that the financial and economic crisis was the gravest since FDR, caused by a get-government-out-of-the-way credo championed by Bush and McCain and the Republicans, and that it'll take a re-regulating "trickle up" Democratic president, not a trickle-down Republican, to set things right.

But my words paled compared to a local party leader who followed me to the mike. He told the crowd that we had returned to 1932, the year he was born, the year FDR beat Hoover. "I didn't live through the Depression," he said, "but I lived through the effects of it."

His family of eight wore shoes only to go to church and to school, and got a new pair once a year. "Thanks to Bush and Cheney and McCain," he said, "we're on the edge of the cliff again."

-------

I was sitting on a folding chair, speech done, listening to bluegrass, when Kari Gunther-Seymour came up with a basket of cookies. Kari is a person you always hope to know. [caption id="attachment_371" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="'Nuf said, in these parts"][/caption]

The communications director of a reject Republican organization called WORD (Women Openly Reclaiming Democracy) in Albany, Ohio, she and her colleagues founded Baking For Obama: Working For Change, One Cookie At A Time. With their sales proceeds, they fund Democratic action.

"One of many things Appalachian women are good at is cooking," said the mother of an Iraq war veteran serving his second tour. "And here in Appalachia, lots of things get decided at the kitchen table."

If you think you have courage, try operating a WORD bake sale on the steps of an Appalachian courthouse. Kari is an inspiration. If the rest of us had an ounce of her determination, this election would be over.

We won't carry Appalachia, but if we increase the Democratic vote beyond Kerry's, it'll help us take this state. A change of only nine votes per precinct here in 2004 would have meant the end of George W. Bush.

[caption id="attachment_368" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="An advanced economic/political concept"][/caption]

"W" and "An American Carol": losers left and right

James McPherson — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 00:12:49 +0000

Two politically oriented films have been released just before the election. One has an obvious liberal bias, the other an obvious conservative bias. Interestingly, these are entertainment films, not documentaries along the lines of "Farenheit 9/11" or the equally slanted ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11"--which means their success will be determined as much by box office dollars as by political influence.

Oliver Stone, who has done some very good films ("Platoon," "Born on the Fourth of July," "Wall Street," "World Trade Center") and some bad history ("JFK" and "Nixon"), tells Maxim that his latest film, "W," is being released this month not to influence the election but "because Bush is still around." He also questions his potential influence: "I did three Vietnam movies, and what good did they do? People still lined up in support of the Iraq War. People don't remember. It shows you the futility of what we do."

The other film is largely an attack on Michael Moore, the creator of "Farenheit 9/11" and "Sicko." The new film, "An American Carol," is produced by another well-known filmmaker, David Zucker ("Airplane!" and "The Naked Gun," from back in the day when we thought O.J. Simpson was funny). Zucker, who in 2004 produced anti-John Kerry ads, and who in an interview with the neoconservative Weekly Standard compares Barack Obama to "a really clever virus who adapts"--says he hopes his film will persuade people to vote against Obama.

That seems unlikely. In fact, neither film is doing particularly well, despite the unpopularity of President George W. Bush or the heavy promotion on Fox News for "An American Carol."

Early reviews of "W" from Variety (an "unusual and inescapably interesting" movie that "feels like a rough draft of a film it might behoove him to remake in 10 or 15 years") and Hollywood Reporter ("a bold but imperfect film about an imperfect man") are obviously mixed. And it seems to me late-night TV hosts have skewered the president pretty thoroughly. Besides, watching the real Bush flounder is bad enough--and no longer particularly funny, considering the state of the nation thanks to the Iraq War and the economy.

Of course conservatives quickly and ludicrously complained that liberal bias and "ticket fraud" (?!) were keeping "An American Carol" from doing well, but judging by the preview, I suspect that the primary problem is the combination of unsubtle political commentary combined with even less subtle juvenile slapstick humor. It is notable that the filmmakers refused to release the film for critics, usually a sure sign that the filmmakers know they have a dud on their hands (though in this case they spun it as a defense against liberally biased critics).

It's difficult to imagine whom "An American Carol" is trying to reach. After all, most of the college-age males that the preview seems to want to engage likely will turn to something equally goofy, but which also offers the prospect of nudity.

Young people look for Adam Sandler and David Spade, not Kelsey Grammar and Dennis Hopper, and for Angelina Jolie rather than her father, Jon Voight. And even moviegoers who like Kevin Farley, the film's star, want to laugh with their lovable losers, not at those losers, and they want to see their heroes win in the end. That doesn't happen here. Instead--ironic spoiler alert--the end of the film apparently has the character intending to do a new, more accurate version of "JFK."

Older audiences need a stronger reason to go watch a film than do older audiences, and I can't see Farley being such a reason. The film is broadly obvious--and therefore uninspiring--in its intent, and apparently lazy in execution. And anyone who wants to see Bill O'Reilly acting stupid can do so five nights a week on television; there is little reason to pay 8 or 10 bucks to do so.

This won't be an election turned by film fiction, or even by based-on-a-true-story depictions offered in movies (or in political ads, for that matter). The fact that soon perhaps no one will be able to afford to go the movies, anyway (though escapist entertainment films were popular during Depression), will play a much bigger role in the probably election of Barack Obama. By then you'll probably be able to check out both of these films on video.

dear mister harper

spatherdab — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:51:56 +0000

When power leads man toward arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations.
When power narrows the areas of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence.
When power corrupts, poetry cleanses, for art establishes the basic human truths which must serve as the touchstone of our judgment.

Yours sincerely,
John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Amherst College,
Oct. 26, 1963

A Spark of Decency Comes Out of McCain, But Who Are These Republicans of Today Anyway?

triptotheouthouse — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 05:41:59 +0000

After all the viciousness that the McCain-Palin has been putting forth in their campaign speeches, finally, but finally, today McCain had to admit that "Obama is a decent man", only to be booed by many of his supporters for saying that. However, what I liked about it was there was sincerity in his voice and on his face when he answered the questions about Obama, something we haven't seen from him in the debates. What is unfortunate is that the Republican campaign has spent so much time and energy before today revving their voters into almost a rampant frenzy. Where do they get all their ideas anyway?

My mom and dad were Republicans. I grew up thinking the Republicans were the good guys and the Democrats were the bad guys. My mom didn't like JFK, mostly I think because he was Catholic. I remember her telling me about when she was a girl there was a KKK in or around Dorrance. Back in the 1920s, the KKK was a big political force in the U.S., but of course, in places like Kansas in those days, there were very few black people, so there had to be someone to be the scapegoat--someone to blame--someone to discriminate against--so it was the Catholics. I don't know if my grandparents liked Catholics or not, but my mom sure didn't.

She also said that only the Democrats got the country into wars. I guess that was because FDR was President when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and the U.S. was forced into WWII. She always loved George W. Bush, but when your mother is in her 90s, you just don't say, "But Mom, I thought you used to say 'Only Democrats get us into wars."

I always liked Eisenhower. Still to this day, I think of the 50s as the "good days", even though I was just a little kid, and I know that for most little kids as long as they can play, have enough food to eat, and don't get abused, childhood is "the good days". I remember seeing "Ike" in some parade in Salina, maybe when he was running for his second term. And, of course, Ike and Mamie and the baby are buried right there in the Eisenhower Center, where I've been many times.

Bob Dole was our county attorney. Because Dad was township trustee, I'd sometimes go with him up to Russell to the courthouse to Dole's office. Mom and Dad were also the Republican precinct chairman and chairwoman some of those years, so sometimes Bob Dole would come out to the farm campaigning, both for when he was still running for county attorney, then later when he was running for congress from Kansas' Big First District. If I remember right, Kansas still had 6 congressional districts at that time (now it has just four). I still have the letter of congratulations from him from when I was sent to Kansas Boys' State at KU. I always thought and still think that he is a pretty good guy. He did after a McCain-like marriage situation. He divorced his first wife, and a lot of people said it was because she was good enough to be a politician's wife--a Washington wife. She eventually got married to a farmer from Sylvan Grove, and I would see her off and on when I was working over there in the summers. Then later, he married Elizabeth. She's now a Senator from North Carolina and probably get beat this year, but why either of them wants to stay in politics at their age is a wonder.

I guess I liked when he ran for President the first time, but the first time I remember voting was for John Anderson. I guess by that time I'd already started thinking more about the realities of what the political parties stood for, but I still wasn't ready to vote for a Democrat. By the time, Jimmy Carter came around, I had more idea of which side thought more like I do, and I haven't changed my mind much since when Ronald Reagan's time when all these religious right people started getting more and more control in the Republican party.

But really, it's hard to tell who these people are; they're not at all like the Republicans from earlier years that I remember. For sure, those on either side of the political fence could get very argumentative about their positions and put their feet in the ground about where they stood on the issues. But where does all this hate come from? They don't even seem to care about the issues. Actually, some of things I see from them at rallies looks more like Serbians or other Eastern Europeans, when they were fuming about their former neighbors, who were of a different ethnicity. Or like what I've seen on old news reels of some of the German people lashing out against the Jews during Hitler's early years, before WWII.

It's really frightening.

I know there are probably still lots of good Republicans out there, but at the moment, the ones who the McCain-Palin campaign are attracting to their events act more like doberman pinschers guarding the junkyard fence.

Hisshadyness » JFK Speech (Happy Trance Mix) » Planet Netopia

walkndude — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 21:59:45 +0000

Hisshadyness » JFK Speech (Happy Trance Mix) » Planet Netopia

John Fitzgerald Kennedy made this speech and 10 days later he was shot dead. This is what happens when you go public with their plan for global domination, you dont get to write a book or make a dvd about it. I think JFK knew it was coming because of the Northwoods and green back dollar, and so he just said feck it, I'm telling. Listen up folks, JFK died because e wnted us to be free. any fathers, sons, uncles, grandfathers and brothers died for us to have freedom from tyranny; and yet your all just letting this happen. It doesnt require violence, just us downing tools and saying fuck this for a game of soldiers, kick our incompitant leaders out and have a rethink. Because we are all good at heart and we know how to run this world more than any leader motivted by money, ego and power can ever do.

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1652153&w=425&h=350&fv=]

Hisshadyness » JFK Speech (Happy Trance Mix) » Planet Netopia

What if...?

amson — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:54:19 +0000

How would things be different today?

Peace

AM Son

5 Point Plan to Fix the System

worldtosteve — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:03:38 +0000

1. THE CHALLENGE - Challenge the American people to change the world – ala JFK. I challenge the American people to in the next 10 years commit itself to become energy independent. Like life was in the 1960’s. Everyone was excited and fascinated by the Space Program. Celebritize the scientists to get public interest. Tons of new jobs will be created. They are the new high paying Science jobs that we’ve been loosing in the past 8 years. Then when we are ready to implement these new technologies, new blue color jobs will be created to build and maintain these new industries. Then the United States will then export these energies, technologies, licensing, leasing or any others schemes for selling these products worldwide.

2. THE MISSION - A Manhattan Project codenamed (The Chicago Project) – to develop alternate sources of energy. All of the ones mentioned, but new ones like Fusion power/H3 from the moon and other impossible to think of energies. We need enormous amounts of money to attack this problem with the greatest most creative minds we have. Sequester the people like we did in the Manhattan Project and get it done, and done first, so we can sell or license it to the world. It really needs to be a race. Oil is the past, drilling is a bad idea, once we start why would companies want to shut it down. They will get comfortable with it and sell it to the American people like they have in the past. It’s the “Energy industrial complex” that will find a way to make us dependent on there heroin (oil). Nuclear is also the past, managing the waste is a ticking time bomb. Although I understand the need for some amount of it in the mean time, but if we set a 10 year goal to be live with these new future energies, oil and nuclear may not even be on-line by then.

3. THE PEOPLE - A New Deal type program to rebuild infrastructure. Soon we are going to have a large amount of unemployed. Rather then pay benefits and receive nothing for it, employ them in a WPA style program and retrain them at the same time in the new infrastructure jobs of the future. The old manufacturing jobs of the past are gone. They are not easily coming back and maybe we don’t want them. What we need to do is develop the new blue and white color jobs of the future, the ones that will replace the consumer products industry jobs of the past. One would be in rebuilding our infrastructure. The other will be the scientists it will take to do it. When we are ready to roll out the new infrastructure and energies of the future we will need people to manage, transmit and repair the new industries. Infrastructure, science and energy will be our future.

4. REGULATION – Remove the laws that allow states like Delaware to be a safe haven for banks. Credit is issued on merit with standards set by the Federal Regulatory Commission. It’s math. If you have a credit score of 670, income of $50K, debts equaling X, you are either eligible or not eligible for a loan. You either meet the standards or you don’t. The idea that you could be charged 25% interest because your default rate is high is unacceptable. That person needs to wait, like we did in the 1970’s, and pay off some of their debts, get more savings and try again in a year or two. Are we going to shrink our potential borrowers and market size? Yes, but that will intern lessen our defaulters too. It will make the economic ride sometimes bumpy but less of a roller coaster.

5. ORIGINATION – Make it very difficult for the originator of a debt to sell it. If I originate a loan to you, you own it till it’s paid off. Years ago when you got your mortgage from your neighborhood bank and they kept the loan till you paid it off. The banker knew if you defaulted, it wouldn’t look good for him and his superiors would question why he approved that loan. That’s called accountability. Remove the ability of banks to sell loans and you’ll see how good the paper will become. What we currently have is practically a pyramid scheme. I do a questionable loan and off it to another bank. It then gets chopped up and made into a security and then that is sold to a mutual fund. At each step, equity is pulled out and profit made from something that is worth nothing. Then it makes its’ way to the final rung, which is a bad debt that has to be written off by someone. Eventually, this pyramid scheme will fail.

Change the world! Great economic boom.

worldtosteve — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:31:37 +0000

Here is the theory:

Presidents don’t create economic booms!
Presidents can inspire and challenge a nation to achieve a goal.
If these goals change the world, then markets and economies can boom.

When you create something that changes the world, something that effects everyone, everywhere, in a positive way and makes their life better, faster or easier. When you shrink the planet, (meaning your local neighborhood extends to a farther border then it currently does); it allows you to communicate, sell and or travel to it, you’ve changed the world and economies will boom. I don't believe that tax policy effects ecomomic booms as much as changing the world does. Let's look at the 70's, no world changing technology, so why should the economy boom?

Presidential Booms through the last 50 years

FDR relative boom (1933 – 1945)

He used public-works projects like the WPA to re-build the infrastructure. He built, dams, roads, and telecommunications which made the US a smaller more connected country thus changing our world. Additionally, he brought the greatest minds in the world together along with an enormous sum of money and created The Manhattan Project to do something that was thought impossible. The atom bomb changed the world forever. It created industries and markets for weapons and nuclear power. These technologies changed the world forever, offering jobs to many, energy and eventual prosperity.

Eisenhower boom (1953 – 1961)

An extension of FDR’s infrastructure program; Eisenhower, created the Interstate that allowed people and commerce to move across the US and thus changing our world. Local economies created more wealth as the US shrinks in size to them. The local economy grows having the ability to sell to people further away from them. As we got highways we had the ability to ship things across the USA (shrinking the USA). Individuals now had the ability to visit far away places in there car. Car sales, oil sales, tourism all benefit form Eisenhower’s changing the world. Infrastructure was increased and jobs were created in the accomplishment of this great goal. It changed our world and our lives by allowing us to easily get to farther places for work and play.

JFK boom (1961 – 1963)

He challenged the country to go to the moon and return a man safely back to earth. The government put enormous sums of money into NASA and the private sector and an idea that seemed impossible became possible and it changed the world. Now the universe got smaller. Satellites changed everything from spying to communication to television. Industries, markets and products never conceived of were created and we owe many of our products today to this challenge including the beginnings of the personal computer all the way to Velcro. Our ego grew as we saw that as a nation we could do something that no one else could do. That confidence in ourselves changed our world because we knew we were the best. And when you believe you are the best, the possibilities are unlimited.

Reagan boom (1981 – 1989)

The personal computer was introduced to the public and immediately changed the workplace, education, designing, product development and more. In a short period of time almost every industry in the world adapted computers to do work much faster and more efficiently then before. Small computers were quickly incorporated into every product made. It improved our speed in the office, allowed small businesses to do things that could only have been done with a large company. It truly changed our world.

Clinton boom (1993 – 2001)

The internet changed the way we communicate, shop, educate, entertain and thus made the world a little smaller and closer together. In doing all of this, it changed the world. Small businesses that were local to there state, now had a storefront to selling their products around the world. Communication via the internet created new industries and re-invented many old industries. Additionally, cell phone technology changed the world by making communication more instant, cheaper and available to the average person. Manufacture and creation of these phones opened up new markets in China and India.

Future Boom

Here are two challenges that should belong to the next president:

1. Energy: Everyone needs it and we need to create a ton of power that does not pollute the earth. What I propose is the Chicago Project, 10 times larger then The Manhattan Project and Challenge the country to develop new power sources and be off oil dependency in 10 years. Everything is possible, nothing is off the table. Fusion reactors are possible using H3 from the moon; a combination of wind, solar, electric, hydrogen; and a host of other power sources we can’t even conceive of. Adding to the grid will be the stock market or EBay of the future. We need to develop ways where individuals can own devices that create energy (like solar panels), can use it and sell the balance to the grid. We will use this excess grid power and be able to sell it to other countries as well as leasing or licensing of our technologies. Our ego as a nation will grow when we see that we are dominating the Energy game and acting responsibly to make it available to our allies.

2. Climate change: The creation of this power that we are recommending may actually help stop climate change but changing the climate is essential or we may not have a world to argue these ideas in. The business of climate change would change the world and has the potential of creating huge industries, business and economies to its end.

Both of these ideas will change the world. They kind of work (hand in hand).
Businesses can’t and won’t do it. The investment is way out of their reach. Hundreds of billions of dollars need to be spent. Business without government would not have brought us out of the Great Depression. It would not have built an interstate. It would not have gotten us to the moon and back. It would not have built a nuclear bomb. It would not have created the internet.

All world changing events came from an initial challenge, setting a goal, and a huge government expenditure to both government agencies and the private sector. This will create jobs and it will change the world.

Change the world with something that changes our lives and we will see another boom.

Doktor Holocaust vs. the conspiracy of no conspiracies

Doktor Holocaust — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:58:07 +0000

my conspiracy-theory-of-no-conspiracies is that while there IS indeed a small number of super-rich people who are all in cahoots to help keep each other rich, they're no more in control of the world than anyone else is, but just happen to be better-insulated from random shit that throws most people for a loop because they have money set aside for throwing at problems until those problems go away.

JFK True Patriot

bnmcginnis — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:15:18 +0000

I found this little number at the Department of Justice's website archives. Tell me what you think.

"The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the Americans
freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight."-
U.S. President John Kennedy, Ten (10) Days Before His Assassination;
Quote From Speech at Columbia University."

The First of July

senorfalk — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 22:39:34 +0000

July 1 is a travel day for me. Peering out the window, cars going by, I seemed in need of dramatic change on that day. One year ago, exactly, I was traveling the opposite direction on the Van Wyck. Also with little sleep. Amy Winehouse was playing in the car. Cultural uncomfortabilities seemed humorous.

But a year later, those same shocks lingered without the laughs. Silence accompanied my dazed state as I headed toward JFK, destined for Los Angeles. Summer hit me hard, and I took off far away. At the airport, I started running through my mental "Spanish Phrases for Dummies"--compelled to spew the basics, preparing myself as I stood far back in line. But English surrounded me, even in New York, and I was only going to America.

Former JFK aide, Sorensen, predicts Obama victory

Barton Lorimor — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 05:51:30 +0000

Posted by Barton Lorimor

Ted Sorensen was the Special Counsel to one Democratic president of a minority and said he has no doubt in his mind that Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama will cruise into the White House come Nov. 4.

Sorensen, Special Counsel and speechwriter to the late President Kennedy, said the 35th president and faced the same criticism as Obama, Illinois' rookie Senator.

"I got tired of reading that Sen. Obama was too young and inexperienced, and had no qualifications to be president," an 80-year-old Sorensen said Wednesday at the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute before approaching a lecturn in front of a crowd of hundreds of Carbondale political junkies — most of which sported Obama '08 t-shirts. "When John F. Kennedy began to test presidential waters, he was a lot younger than Sen. Obama."

Kennedy was age 43 when he and then-Republican challenger Richard Nixon of California battled each other for the White House in 1960. Nearly seven months after Kennedy had been sworn into office and given his famous inaugeral address, Obama was born in the Hawaiian islands.

"I also even was angier to read that Sen. Obama had no choice to be president because he was born black in a white country. Just as I read over and over again back in 1960 that JFK had no chance of being president because he was born Catholic in a protestant country," Sorensen said.

Ironically, Kennedy, like Obama, became a widely-recognized political figure during the Democratic National Convention that convened four years before he was at the top of the party's ticket. Delegates to the 1956 DNCC in Chicago were handed the task of chosing a running mate for Presidential nominee Aldai Stevenson, a Bloomington native. Kennedy was one of the two finalists for the job.

(Stevenson, who lost the '56 election, became the Kennedy administration's UN ambassador, and publically called the Soviet Union on their insistence that their government was not placing nuclear missile in Cuba in 1962.)

At the 2004 convention, then-state Sen. Obama delivered a prime-time speech before television cameras and delegates that had convened in Boston. That speech has been cited as the starting point for Obama's national career.

Sorensen said Obama embodies John Kennedy's legacy of promoting peace and using diplomacy instead of troop deployment.

"That's why he put such stock, not just in the State Department, in the Peace Corps," he said.

Though Sorensen used phrases like, "When Obama is elected president," through interviews Wednesday, he said this year's presidential election is as vital to the country as the scrammble in 1932, which is when Democrat Franklin Roosevelt unseated Herbert Hoover in the midst of the Great Depression.

Lorimor is a reporter and columnist for the Daily Egyptian

Defense contributions help NASA's 50-year legacy

worldmilitaryhistory — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:25:44 +0000

: Aviation Calendar 2009

Our military Aviation Calendar 2009 features 13 images of US and allied military aircraft in action. Buy the Aviation Calendar 2009 exclusively at the PatriArt Gallery for only $ 19.99. Worldwide delivery available.

As the men and women of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration celebrate its 50th anniversary this week, Defense Department personnel also can take a bow for the key role they have played in lending technology and expertise to NASA's space exploration and research mission.

NASA began operations on Oct. 1, 1958, just a few days short of the one-year anniversary of the Soviet Union's successful Sputnik I launch. Concerned about the race for technological superiority in space, U.S. officials debated long and hard over whether the space program should be placed under military or civilian control, historical documents show.

Ultimately, NASA was established as a new civilian agency that borrowed heavily from the Defense Department and other government organizations as it built its own capabilities.

One doesn't have to look hard to see the deep connection between NASA and DOD, beginning with the astronaut program. In fact, President Dwight D. Eisenhower almost assured that connection when he decreed that all astronaut candidates be test pilots with college degrees.

All seven original astronauts -- known as "The Mercury 7" because they were chosen for Project Mercury, the nation's first manned space flight program -- came from the military. Alan Shepard, Walter Schirra and Scott Carpenter were Navy aviators; Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Gordon Cooper and Donald "Deke" Slayton were Air Force pilots; and John Glenn flew in the Marine Corps.

The long list of military members who became "firsts" at NASA didn't stop there. John Glenn, who flew 59 combat missions during World War II and another 63 during the Korean War before joining the Naval Air Test Center, made history at NASA as the first American to orbit Earth on Feb. 20, 1962.

Neil Armstrong, the first person to walk on the moon, got his initial flight training at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Fla., in 1949 and 1950, then went on to fly 78 missions over Korea during the Korean War. His words as he stepped from the Apollo 11 lunar module on July 20, 1969 -- "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" -- are an indelible mark in NASA's history.

Neil Armstrong's fellow Apollo 11 crewmembers had deep military roots, too. Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, the second person to walk on the moon, graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., in 1951, before serving as an Air Force fighter pilot during the Korean War.

Michael Collins, who orbited the moon as Armstrong and Aldrin walked on its surface, also got his commission at West Point before joining the Air Force and receiving flight training at Columbus Air Force Base, Miss.

Thirty years later, Eileen Collins -- no relation to the Apollo 11 astronaut -- made NASA history in 1999 aboard the Columbia as the first woman to command a space shuttle. An Air Force colonel, she graduated from Air Force undergraduate pilot training in 1979. She was attending Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., when NASA selected her for its astronaut program.

Military members have participated in NASA's great triumphs as well as its deep tragedies, including the Challenger and Columbia space shuttle disasters.

Four servicemembers were among the seven Challenger crewmembers killed when a fuel tank exploded 73 seconds after launch on Jan. 28, 1986. Michael J. Smith, the pilot, was a Navy captain; Francis Richard "Dick" Scobee and Ellison Onizuka were Air Force lieutenant colonels; and Gregory Jarvis was an Air Force captain.

Again, five U.S. military officers, as well as an Israeli officer, died when Columbia disintegrated over Texas as it re-entered Earth's atmosphere on Feb. 1, 2003. That incident killed Navy Cmdr. William C. McCool, the pilot; Air Force Col. Rick D. Husband; Air Force Lt. Col. Michael P. Anderson; Navy Capt. David M. Brown and Navy Capt. Laurel Clark. Israeli Air Force Col. Ilan Ramon and Kalpana Chawla, the only civilian on the mission, also died.

But the connection between the military and NASA goes far beyond the astronaut program.

From its inception, NASA officials looked to the Defense Department and other interagency, academic, industry and international partners to build the agency's capability, Roger D. Launius, curator for the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum, noted in an article written for NASA's 50th anniversary magazine.

The military had been looking to space and the development of rocket technology and expertise since the closing days of World War II, Air Force Space Command officials noted. NASA officials were anxious to tap into this expertise, and quickly absorbed several ongoing military efforts into its organization. These included the space science group of the Naval Research Laboratory in Maryland that would form the core of the new Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. NASA officials also incorporated the Jet Propulsion Laboratory managed for the Army by specialists at the California Institute of Technology, and the Army Ballistic Missile Agency in Huntsville, Ala., where Wernher von Baun's engineering team was developing large rockets.

Shortly after its formal organization, NASA specialists took over management of space exploration projects from other federal agencies, including the Air Force.

"These activities relied fully on the expertise and resources of the U.S. Air Force in seeing them to fruition," Launius wrote.

One of NASA's earliest borrowings from the military came in the form of launch vehicles originally developed to deliver nuclear weapons.

"Most of the launchers used by NASA during its formative years originated as military ballistic missiles," Launius wrote. "It was, and remains, the fundamental technology necessary for civil space exploration, and it came largely from the military."

Meanwhile, officials at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, another organization Eisenhower created in response to the Sputnik launch, have provided critical expertise that has benefited NASA throughout its 50-year history.

Defense Department officials stood up DARPA to find and quickly develop advanced technology for the military so the United States would never again suffer a technological surprise by another nation.

Initially, DARPA scientists and engineers concentrated on the first surveillance satellites that ensured U.S. presidents had accurate intelligence information on Russian missile program activities, historical records show. But DARPA experts advanced other space projects as well, developing the Saturn V rocket that ultimately enabled the United States to launch the Apollo missions to the moon.

As they observe its 50th anniversary, NASA personnel can look back on its many accomplishments that have brought mankind a better understanding of the solar system and universe. As they advanced this research, NASA scientists and engineers, like those in the military services and DARPA, have pushed the technological envelope in everything from weather forecasting to navigation to global communications.

Speaking at the recent NASA 50th anniversary gala, Neil Armstrong looked back on the agency's history and its future.

"The goal is far more than just going faster, higher and further," he said. "Our goal, indeed our responsibility, is to develop new options for future generations, options for expanding human knowledge, exploration, human settlement and resource development in the universe around us."

(AFNS)

Top 9 True Facts about Obama that McCain Needs to Talk About

William Redman — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:25:33 +0000

The following are disturbing and TRUE tales of the episodic and horrific life that B. Hussein Obama has led. He is an unstoppable machine hell bent on world domination. Senator McCain, if you want to win the third and final debate, you must bring up the top nine most gruesome travesties of B. Hussein Obama's existence.

WARNING: ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK. THIS IS ALL TRUE.

9. B. Hussein Obama was a member of the Weather Underground.

B. Hussein Obama, at age eleven, placed placed a bomb inside The Pentagon. We all know he attended a radical non-Christian school at a young age, but who knew it would pay such dividends so rapidly. And also, he built the bomb himself with handwritten directions from William "I piss in America's mouth" Ayers. (Note: Ayers is under investigation for teaching at aforementioned radical non-Christian school)

8. B. Hussein Obama was supposed to actually shot Ronald Reagan.

B. Hussein Obama, at age twenty, after reading The Catcher in the Rye for the thirteenth time, attempted to murder then-president Reagan. He disguised himself as a white man named John Hinckley Jr. Look at the evidence. It's all there.

7. B. Hussein Obama shot JFK.

B. Hussein Obama, at age two, fired the magic bullet from the grassy knoll which ended then-president Kennedy's life. Two days after what was his first murder, B. Hussein Obama, drunk on the taste of blood, disguised himself as a fat white man named Jack Ruby and murdered an innocent man named Lee Harvey Oswald for no reason whatsoever.

6. B. Hussein Obama was a kamikaze pilot during the Pearl Harbor attacks.

B. Hussein Obama, at age negative twenty, flew a Japanese fighter plane into the U.S.S. Arizona, igniting it's magazine and leading to its ultimate demise. Contrary to popular belief, the magazine was not hit by a motified 40cm shell, it was hit by B. Hussein Obama. (Also, it should be noted that, at the time of the impact, B. Hussein Obama was writing the introduction to Mein Kampf )

5. B. Hussein Obama and his wife are drug dealers.

B. Hussein Obama sold the dope that killed John Belushi, Chris Farley, River Phoenix, Jimi Hendrix, Kurt Cobain (B. Hussein Obama also sold him the shotgun), Ken Caminiti, Truman Capote, Steve Clark of Def Leopard, Judy Garland, Mitch Hedberg, Janis Joplin, Heath Ledger, Marylin Monroe, Brad Nowll, Anna Nicole Smith, Edie Sedgwick, Sid Vicious, and Elvis.

4. B. Hussein Obama killed Goose in Top Gun.

B. Hussein Obama co-wrote the hit film Top Gun at age twenty five. However, in the final cut of the film he inserted his alternate ending so that Goose, Maverick's co-pilot doesn't kill Osama bin Laden with a hunting knife after pulling out Saddam Hussein's Adam's apple (like in the movie Roadhouse). Instead, trying to humiliate Tom Cruise's character (who was obviously modeled after John McCain), B. Hussein demanded that Goose be killed in the midst of a homosexual orgy. Ultimately a third ending was chosen for theaters.

3. B. Hussein Obama tortures animals.

B. Hussein Obama put that gerbil up Richard Gere's ass. It's true. Look it up.

2. B. Hussein Obama attended dog fights at Michael Vick's house.

As if putting innocent animals inside of famous people wasn't bad enough, B. Hussein Obama (and Jeremiah Wright) wagered millions of dollars on brutal dog fights at Michael Vick's house over the last thirty years. B. Hussein was introduced to the sport of dog fighting by Jeremiah Wright. Also B. Hussein told Michael Vick to give Sonya Elliot genital herpes. (*On a related note, B. Hussein came up with the alias Ron Mexico)

1. B. Hussein Obama betrayed Jesus H. Christ and got him killed.

This is a little known fact about B. Hussein Obama's long and horrible horrible life, but it is an important one. B. Hussein attended the last supper of Christ under the name "Judas Iscariot". He stole Mr. Iscariot's identity on the Internet. B. Hussein chewed with is mouth open, got absurdly drunk, passed gas multiple times and then, after embarrassing himself thoroughly, betrayed Christ, ultimately resulting in the demise of our Lord and Savior. The real Judas Iscariot was informed of this travesty and issued a formal apology. It's in the Book of Revelations. Look it up. He's in this picture. Look.

McCain - Obama debate

northbritain — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 23:45:19 +0000

Just watched the edited highlights of the John McCain - Barack Obama debate on Newsnight.

I couldn't believe that the Republician representatives on the programme declared that it was a good night for John McCain.

My word! That's utterly inexplicable.

If that was John McCain on a good night then I'm glad I missed the bad nights!

He really showed his age and his war wounds:- hobbling about the floor and latterly hanging onto his chair towards the end of the debate. I don't mind his age but it brought home to me how his physical condition may affect his ability to be President. And brings me back to the scary thought of Sarah Palin becoming President, should McCain's health deteoriate still further.

In fact, McCain's televisual performance reminded me of the oft-quoted Nixon - Kennedy debate; the perception that Nixon lost against Kennedy due to a bad shave. Neither Nixon or McCain came across as television-friendly.

Its often said that listeners of the Nixon - Kennedy debate on radio scored Nixon higher.

Alas, I doubt even that is true of John McCain.

To me, Obama was more insightful and had more answers than McCain. Even on McCain's supposed strong suit of foreign policy he failed to hit a blow.

In fact, for someone with a supposed grasp of foreign policy how could he let this statement out of the bag:

"We will be talking about countries sometime in the future that we hardly know where they are on the map"

And by the future, he obviously meant his political future if he was President, so its basically today's countries with maybe a couple of changes, perhaps.

And if he doesn't know where they are on a map, how the hell can he have a good grasp of foreign policy?

And if he does have a 'good grasp' on foreign policy by American standards, does that mean Obama's is worse?

Could either McCain or Obama pick out Scotland on a map? Would they be shocked if Scotland was to become independent as the Unionist partisan newpaper The Scotsman recently suggested?

I'm firing that question especially to John McCain who is supposedly a descendant of King William I of Scotland.

The same link gives Barack Obama as a descendant of King Edward I of England, the Hammer of the Scots. The same king that battled against William Wallace and Robert the Bruce. The same king that on leaving Scotland said:

'Bon besoiogne fait gy du merde se delivrer'
('It was well to be rid of shit')

I wonder at the end of the debate just who was thinking that?

Barack Obama?

John McCain?

Or the American public?

John F. Kennedy: Special Message to the Congress on Urgent National Needs, May 25, 1961(Establishes the goal of landing a man on the moon)

historicalspeeches — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 11:23:54 +0000

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, my copartners in Government, gentlemen-and ladies:
The Constitution imposes upon me the obligation to "from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union." While this has traditionally been interpreted as an annual affair, this tradition has been broken in extraordinary times.
These are extraordinary times. And we face an extraordinary challenge. Our strength as well as our convictions have imposed upon this nation the role of leader in freedom's cause.
No role in history could be more difficult or more important. We stand for freedom.
That is our conviction for ourselves--that is our only commitment to others. No friend, no neutral and no adversary should think otherwise. We are not against any man--or any nation--or any system--except as it is hostile to freedom. Nor am I here to present a new military doctrine, bearing any one name or aimed at any one area. I am here to promote the freedom doctrine.
I.
The great battleground for the defense and expansion of freedom today is the whole southern half of the globe--Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East--the lands of the rising peoples. Their revolution is the greatest in human history. They seek an end to injustice, tyranny, and exploitation. More than an end, they seek a beginning.
And theirs is a revolution which we would support regardless of the Cold War, and regardless of which political or economic route they should choose to freedom.
For the adversaries of freedom did not create the revolution; nor did they create the conditions which compel it. But they are seeking to ride the crest of its wave--to capture it for themselves.
Yet their aggression is more often concealed than open. They have fired no missiles; and their troops are seldom seen. They send arms, agitators, aid, technicians and propaganda to every troubled area. But where fighting is required, it is usually done by others--by guerrillas striking at night, by assassins striking alone--assassins who have taken the lives of four thousand civil officers in the last twelve months in Vietnam alone--by subversives and saboteurs and insurrectionists, who in some cases control whole areas inside of independent nations.
[At this point the following paragraph, which appears in the text as signed and transmitted to the Senate and House of Representatives, was omitted in the reading of the message:
They possess a powerful intercontinental striking force, large forces for conventional war, a well-trained underground in nearly every country, the power to conscript talent and manpower for any purpose, the capacity for quick decisions, a closed society without dissent or free information, and long experience in the techniques of violence and subversion. They make the most of their scientific successes, their economic progress and their pose as a foe of colonialism and friend of popular revolution. They prey on unstable or unpopular governments, unsealed, or unknown boundaries, unfilled hopes, convulsive change, massive poverty, illiteracy, unrest and frustration.]
With these formidable weapons, the adversaries of freedom plan to consolidate their territory--to exploit, to control, and finally to destroy the hopes of the world's newest nations; and they have ambition to do it before the end of this decade. It is a contest of will and purpose as well as force and violence--a battle for minds and souls as well as lives and territory. And in that contest, we cannot stand aside.
We stand, as we have always stood from our earliest beginnings, for the independence and equality of all nations. This nation was born of revolution and raised in freedom. And we do not intend to leave an open road for despotism.
There is no single simple policy which meets this challenge. Experience has taught us that no one nation has the power or the wisdom to solve all the problems of the world or manage its revolutionary tides--that extending our commitments does not always increase our security--that any initiative carries with it the risk of a temporary defeat--that nuclear weapons cannot prevent subversion--that no free people can be kept free without will and energy of their own--and that no two nations or situations are exactly alike.
Yet there is much we can do--and must do. The proposals I bring before you are numerous and varied. They arise from the host of special opportunities and dangers which have become increasingly clear in recent months. Taken together, I believe that they can mark another step forward in our effort as a people. I am here to ask the help of this Congress and the nation in approving these necessary measures.
II. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRESS AT HOME
The first and basic task confronting this nation this year was to turn recession into recovery. An affirmative anti-recession program, initiated with your cooperation, supported the natural forces in the private sector; and our economy is now enjoying renewed confidence and energy. The recession has been halted. Recovery is under way.
But the task of abating unemployment and achieving a full use of our resources does remain a serious challenge for us all. Large-scale unemployment during a recession is bad enough, but large-scale unemployment during a period of prosperity would be intolerable.
I am therefore transmitting to the Congress a new Manpower Development and Training program, to train or retrain several hundred thousand workers, particularly in those areas where we have seen chronic unemployment as a result of technological factors in new occupational skills over a four-year period, in order to replace those skills made obsolete by automation and industrial change with the new skills which the new processes demand.
It should be a satisfaction to us all that we have made great strides in restoring world confidence in the dollar, halting the outflow of gold and improving our balance of payments. During the last two months, our gold stocks actually increased by seventeen million dollars, compared to a loss of 635 million dollars during the last two months of 1960. We must maintain this progress--and this will require the cooperation and restraint of everyone. As recovery progresses, there will be temptations to seek unjustified price and wage increases. These we cannot afford. They will only handicap our efforts to compete abroad and to achieve full recovery here at home. Labor and management must--and I am confident that they will--pursue responsible wage and price policies in these critical times. I look to the President's Advisory Committee on Labor Management Policy to give a strong lead in this direction.
Moreover, if the budget deficit now increased by the needs of our security is to be held within manageable proportions, it will be necessary to hold tightly to prudent fiscal standards; and I request the cooperation of the Congress in this regard--to refrain from adding funds or programs, desirable as they may be, to the Budget--to end the postal deficit, as my predecessor also recommended, through increased rates--a deficit incidentally, this year, which exceeds the fiscal 1962 cost of all the space and defense measures that I am submitting today--to provide full pay-as-you-go highway financing--and to close those tax loopholes earlier specified. Our security and progress cannot be cheaply purchased; and their price must be found in what we all forego as well as what we all must pay.
III. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROGRESS ABROAD
I stress the strength of our economy because it is essential to the strength of our nation. And what is true in our case is true in the case of other countries. Their strength in the struggle for freedom depends on the strength of their economic and their social progress.
We would be badly mistaken to consider their problems in military terms alone. For no amount of arms and armies can help stabilize those governments which are unable or unwilling to achieve social and economic reform and development. Military pacts cannot help nations whose social injustice and economic chaos invite insurgency and penetration and subversion. The most skillful counter-guerrilla efforts cannot succeed where the local population is too caught up in its own misery to be concerned about the advance of communism.
But for those who share this view, we stand ready now, as we have in the past, to provide generously of our skills, and our capital, and our food to assist the peoples of the less-developed nations to reach their goals in freedom--to help them before they are engulfed in crisis.
This is also our great opportunity in 1961. If we grasp it, then subversion to prevent its success is exposed as an unjustifiable attempt to keep these nations from either being free or equal. But if we do not pursue it, and if they do not pursue it, the bankruptcy of unstable governments, one by one, and of unfilled hopes will surely lead to a series of totalitarian receiverships.
Earlier in the year, I outlined to the Congress a new program for aiding emerging nations; and it is my intention to transmit shortly draft legislation to implement this program, to establish a new Act for International Development, and to add to the figures previously requested, in view of the swift pace of critical events, an additional 250 million dollars for a Presidential Contingency Fund, to be used only upon a Presidential determination in each case, with regular and complete reports to the Congress in each case, when there is a sudden and extraordinary drain upon our regular funds which we cannot foresee--as illustrated by recent events in Southeast Asia--and it makes necessary the use of this emergency reserve. The total amount requested--now raised to 2..65 billion dollars--is both minimal and crucial. I do not see how anyone who is concerned--as we all are--about the growing threats to freedom around the globe--and who is asking what more we can do as a people--can weaken or oppose the single most important program available for building the frontiers of freedom.
IV.
All that I have said makes it clear that we are engaged in a world-wide struggle in which we bear a heavy burden to preserve and promote the ideals that we share with all mankind, or have alien ideals forced upon them. That struggle has highlighted the role of our Information Agency. It is essential that the funds previously requested for this effort be not only approved in full, but increased by 2 million, 400 thousand dollars, to a total of 121 million dollars.
This new request is for additional radio and television to Latin America and Southeast Asia. These tools are particularly effective and essential in the cities and villages of those great continents as a means of reaching millions of uncertain peoples to tell them of our interest in their fight for freedom. In Latin America, we are proposing to increase our Spanish and Portuguese broadcasts to a total of 154 hours a week, compared to 42 hours today, none of which is in Portuguese, the language of about one-third of the people of South America. The Soviets, Red Chinese and satellites already broadcast into Latin America more than 134 hours a week in Spanish and Portuguese. Communist China alone does more public information broadcasting in our own hemisphere than we do. Moreover, powerful propaganda broadcasts from Havana now are heard throughout Latin America, encouraging new revolutions in several countries.
Similarly, in Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Thailand, we must communicate our determination and support to those upon whom our hopes for resisting the communist tide in that continent ultimately depend. Our interest is in the truth.
V. OUR PARTNERSHIP FOR SELF-DEFENSE
But while we talk of sharing and building and the competition of ideas, others talk of arms and threaten war. So we have learned to keep our defenses strong--and to cooperate with others in a partnership of self-defense. The events of recent weeks have caused us to look anew at these efforts.
The center of freedom's defense is our network of world alliances, extending from NATO, recommended by a Democratic President and approved by a Republican Congress, to SEATO, recommended by a Republican President and approved by a Democratic Congress. These alliances were constructed in the 1940's and 1950's--it is our task and responsibility in the 1960's to strengthen them.
To meet the changing conditions of power--and power relationships have changed--we have endorsed an increased emphasis on NATO's conventional strength. At the same time we are affirming our conviction that the NATO nuclear deterrent must also be kept strong. I have made clear our intention to commit to the NATO command, for this purpose, the 5 Polaris submarines originally suggested by President Eisenhower, with the possibility, if needed, of more to come.
Second, a major part of our partnership for self-defense is the Military Assistance Program. The main burden of local defense against local attack, subversion, insurrection or guerrilla warfare must of necessity rest with local forces. Where these forces have the necessary will and capacity to cope with such threats, our intervention is rarely necessary or helpful. Where the will is present and only capacity is lacking, our Military Assistance Program can be of help.
But this program, like economic assistance, needs a new emphasis. It cannot be extended without regard to the social, political and military reforms essential to internal respect and stability. The equipment and training provided must be tailored to legitimate local needs and to our own foreign and military policies, not to our supply of military stocks or a local leader's desire for military display. And military assistance can, in addition to its military purposes, make a contribution to economic progress, as do our own Army Engineers.
In an earlier message, I requested 1.6 billion dollars for Military Assistance, stating that this would maintain existing force levels, but that I could not foresee how much more might be required. It is now clear that this is not enough. The present crisis in Southeast Asia, on which the Vice President has made a valuable report--the rising threat of communism in Latin America--the increased arms traffic in Africa--and all the new pressures on every nation found on the map by tracing your fingers along the borders of the Communist bloc in Asia and the Middle East--all make clear the dimension of our needs.
I therefore request the Congress to provide a total of 1.885 billion dollars for Military Assistance in the coming fiscal year--an amount less than that requested a year ago--but a minimum which must be assured if we are to help those nations make secure their independence. This must be prudently and wisely spent--and that will be our common endeavor. Military and economic assistance has been a heavy burden on our citizens for a long time, and I recognize the strong pressures against it; but this battle is far from over, it is reaching a crucial stage, and I believe we should participate in it. We cannot merely state our opposition to totalitarian advance without paying the price of helping those now under the greatest pressure.
VI. OUR OWN MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE SHIELD
In line with these developments, I have directed a further reinforcement of our own capacity to deter or resist non-nuclear aggression. In the conventional field, with one exception, I find no present need for large new levies of men. What is needed is rather a change of position to give us still further increases in flexibility.
Therefore, I am directing the Secretary of Defense to undertake a reorganization and modernization of the Army's divisional structure, to increase its non-nuclear firepower, to improve its tactical mobility in any environment, to insure its flexibility to meet any direct or indirect threat, to facilitate its coordination with our major allies, and to provide more modern mechanized divisions in Europe and bring their equipment up to date, and new airborne brigades in both the Pacific and Europe.
And secondly, I am asking the Congress for an additional 100 million dollars to begin the procurement task necessary to re-equip this new Army structure with the most modern material. New helicopters, new armored personnel carriers, and new howitzers, for example, must be obtained now.
Third, I am directing the Secretary of Defense to expand rapidly and substantially, in cooperation with our Allies, the orientation of existing forces for the conduct of non-nuclear war, paramilitary operations and sub-limited or unconventional wars.
In addition our special forces and unconventional warfare units will be increased and reoriented. Throughout the services new emphasis must be placed on the special skills and languages which are required to work with local populations.
Fourth, the Army is developing plans to make possible a much more rapid deployment of a major portion of its highly trained reserve forces. When these plans are completed and the reserve is strengthened, two combat-equipped divisions, plus their supporting forces, a total of 89,000 men, could be ready in an emergency for operations with but 3 weeks' notice--2 more divisions with but 5 weeks' notice--and six additional divisions and their supporting forces, making a total of 10 divisions, could be deployable with less than 8 weeks' notice. In short, these new plans will allow us to almost double the combat power of the Army in less than two months, compared to the nearly nine months heretofore required.
Fifth, to enhance the already formidable ability of the Marine Corps to respond to limited war emergencies, I am asking the Congress for 60 million dollars to increase the Marine Corps strength to 190,000 men. This will increase the initial impact and staying power of our three Marine divisions and three air wings, and provide a trained nucleus for further expansion, if necessary for self-defense.
Finally, to cite one other area of activities that are both legitimate and necessary as a means of self-defense in an age of hidden perils, our whole intelligence effort must be reviewed, and its coordination with other elements of policy assured. The Congress and the American people are entitled to know that we will institute whatever new organization, policies, and control are necessary.
VII. CIVIL DEFENSE
One major element of the national security program which this nation has never squarely faced up to is civil defense. This problem arises not from present trends but from national inaction in which most of us have participated. In the past decade we have intermittently considered a variety of programs, but we have never adopted a consistent policy. Public considerations have been largely characterized by apathy, indifference and skepticism; while, at the same time, many of the civil defense plans have been so far-reaching and unrealistic that they have not gained essential support.
This Administration has been looking hard at exactly what civil defense can and cannot do. It cannot be obtained cheaply. It cannot give an assurance of blast protection that will be proof against surprise attack or guaranteed against obsolescence or destruction. And it cannot deter a nuclear attack.
We will deter an enemy from making a nuclear attack only if our retaliatory power is so strong and so invulnerable that he knows he would be destroyed by our response. If we have that strength, civil defense is not needed to deter an attack. If we should ever lack it, civil defense would not be an adequate substitute.
But this deterrent concept assumes rational calculations by rational men. And the history of this planet, and particularly the history of the 20th century, is sufficient to remind us of the possibilities of an irrational attack, a miscalculation, an accidental war, [or a war of escalation in which the stakes by each side gradually increase to the point of maximum danger] which cannot be either foreseen or deterred. It is on this basis that civil defense can be readily justifiable--as insurance for the civilian population in case of an enemy miscalculation. It is insurance we trust will never be needed--but insurance which we could never forgive ourselves for foregoing in the event of catastrophe.
Once the validity of this concept is recognized, there is no point in delaying the initiation of a nation-wide long-range program of identifying present fallout shelter capacity and providing shelter in new and existing structures. Such a program would protect millions of people against the hazards of radioactive fallout in the event of large-scale nuclear attack. Effective performance of the entire program not only requires new legislative authority and more funds, but also sound organizational arrangements.
Therefore, under the authority vested in me by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1958, I am assigning responsibility for this program to the top civilian authority already responsible for continental defense, the Secretary of Defense. It is important that this function remain civilian, in nature and leadership; and this feature will not be changed.
The Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization will be reconstituted as a small staff agency to assist in the coordination of these functions. To more accurately describe its role, its title should be changed to the Office of Emergency Planning.
As soon as those newly charged with these responsibilities have prepared new authorization and appropriation requests, such requests will be transmitted to the Congress for a much strengthened Federal-State civil defense program. Such a program will provide Federal funds for identifying fallout shelter capacity in existing, structures, and it will include, where appropriate, incorporation of shelter in Federal buildings, new requirements for shelter in buildings constructed with Federal assistance, and matching grants and other incentives for constructing shelter in State and local and private buildings.
Federal appropriations for civil defense in fiscal 1962 under this program will in all likelihood be more than triple the pending budget requests; and they will increase sharply in subsequent years. Financial participation will also be required from State and local governments and from private citizens. But no insurance is cost-free; and every American citizen and his community must decide for themselves whether this form of survival insurance justifies the expenditure of effort, time and money. For myself, I am convinced that it does.
VIII. DISARMAMENT
I cannot end this discussion of defense and armaments without emphasizing our strongest hope: the creation of an orderly world where disarmament will be possible. Our aims do not prepare for war--they are efforts to discourage and resist the adventures of others that could end in war.
That is why it is consistent with these efforts that we continue to press for properly safeguarded disarmament measures. At Geneva, in cooperation with the United Kingdom, we have put forward concrete proposals to make clear our wish to meet the Soviets half way in an effective nuclear test ban treaty--the first significant but essential step on the road towards disarmament. Up to now, their response has not been what we hoped, but Mr. Dean returned last night to Geneva, and we intend to go the last mile in patience to secure this gain if we can.
Meanwhile, we are determined to keep disarmament high on our agenda--to make an intensified effort to develop acceptable political and technical alternatives to the present arms race. To this end I shall send to the Congress a measure to establish a strengthened and enlarged Disarmament Agency.
IX. SPACE
Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. Since early in my term, our efforts in space have been under review. With the advice of the Vice President, who is Chairman of the National Space Council, we have examined where we are strong and where we are not, where we may succeed and where we may not. Now it is time to take longer strides--time for a great new American enterprise--time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth.
I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshalled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.
Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of leadtime, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last. We take an additional risk by making it in full view of the world, but as shown by the feat of astronaut Shepard, this very risk enhances our stature when we are successful. But this is not merely a race. Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.
I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals:
First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations--explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon--if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.
Secondly, an additional 23 million dollars, together with 7 million dollars already available, will accelerate development of the Rover nuclear rocket. This gives promise of some day providing a means for even more exciting and ambitious exploration of space, perhaps beyond the moon, perhaps to the very end of the solar system itself.
Third, an additional 50 million dollars will make the most of our present leadership, by accelerating the use of space satellites for world-wide communications.
Fourth, an additional 75 million dollars--of which 53 million dollars is for the Weather Bureau--will help give us at the earliest possible time a satellite system for world-wide weather observation.
Let it be clear--and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make--let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62--an estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all.
Now this is a choice which this country must make, and I am confident that under the leadership of the Space Committees of the Congress, and the Appropriating Committees, that you will consider the matter carefully.
It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. But all of you have lived through the last four years and have seen the significance of space and the adventures in space, and no one can predict with certainty what the ultimate meaning will be of mastery of space.
I believe we should go to the moon. But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful. If we are not, we should decide today and this year.
This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel.
New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further--unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space.
X. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, let me emphasize one point. It is not a pleasure for any President of the United States, as I am sure it was not a pleasure for my predecessors, to come before the Congress and ask for new appropriations which place burdens on our people. I came to this conclusion with some reluctance. But in my judgment, this is a most serious time in the life of our country and in the life of freedom around the globe, and it is the obligation, I believe, of the President of the United States to at least make his recommendations to the Members of the Congress, so that they can reach their own conclusions with that judgment before them. You must decide yourselves, as I have decided, and I am confident that whether you finally decide in the way that I have decided or not, that your judgment--as my judgment--is reached on what is in the best interests of our country.
In conclusion, let me emphasize one point: that we are determined, as a nation in 1961 that freedom shall survive and succeed--and whatever the peril and set-backs, we have some very large advantages.
The first is the simple fact that we are on the side of liberty--and since the beginning of history, and particularly since the end of the Second World War, liberty has been winning out all over the globe.
A second real asset is that we are not alone. We have friends and allies all over the world who share our devotion to freedom. May I cite as a symbol of traditional and effective friendship the great ally I am about to visit--France. I look forward to my visit to France, and to my discussion with a great Captain of the Western World, President de Gaulle, as a meeting of particular significance, permitting the kind of close and ranging consultation that will strengthen both our countries and serve the common purposes of world-wide peace and liberty. Such serious conversations do not require a pale unanimity--they are rather the instruments of trust and understanding over a long road.
A third asset is our desire for peace. It is sincere, and I believe the world knows it. We are proving it in our patience at the test ban table, and we are proving it in the UN where our efforts have been directed to maintaining that organization's usefulness as a protector of the independence of small nations. In these and other instances, the response of our opponents has not been encouraging.
Yet it is important to know that our patience at the bargaining table is nearly inexhaustible, though our credulity is limited that our hopes for peace are unfailing, while our determination to protect our security is resolute. For these reasons I have long thought it wise to meet with the Soviet Premier for a personal exchange of views. A meeting in Vienna turned out to be convenient for us both; and the Austrian government has kindly made us welcome. No formal agenda is planned and no negotiations will be undertaken; but we will make clear America's enduring concern is for both peace and freedom--that we are anxious to live in harmony with the Russian people--that we seek no conquests, no satellites, no riches--that we seek only the day when "nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
Finally, our greatest asset in this struggle is the American people--their willingness to pay the price for these programs--to understand and accept a long struggle--to share their resources with other less fortunate people--to meet the tax levels and close the tax loopholes I have requested--to exercise self-restraint instead of pushing up wages or prices, or over-producing certain crops, or spreading military secrets, or urging unessential expenditures or improper monopolies or harmful work stoppages--to serve in the Peace Corps or the Armed Services or the Federal Civil Service or the Congress--to strive for excellence in their schools, in their cities and in their physical fitness and that of their children--to take part in Civil Defense--to pay higher postal rates, and higher payroll taxes and higher teachers' salaries, in order to strengthen our society--to show friendship to students and visitors from other lands who visit us and go back in many cases to be the future leaders, with an image of America--and I want that image, and I know you do, to be affirmative and positive--and, finally, to practice democracy at home, in all States, with all races, to respect each other and to protect the Constitutional rights of all citizens.
I have not asked for a single program which did not cause one or all Americans some inconvenience, or some hardship, or some sacrifice. But they have responded and you in the Congress have responded to your duty--and I feel confident in asking today for a similar response to these new and larger demands. It is heartening to know, as I journey abroad, that our country is united in its commitment to freedom and is ready to do its duty.

President John F. Kennedy
Delivered in person before a joint session of Congress
May 25, 1961

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum

Adapting to your Surrounding, Pt. 2: Muji at JFK

blogretailrefugees — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:10:21 +0000

Following Miguel Caballero´s example, I am including news this morning about another shop taking advantage of its location (although this is probably not as accidental as Caballero´s shop).

Muji, the Japanese retail company, sells a wide variety of household and consumer goods and distinguishes itself with its minimalism design, emphasis on recycling, avoidance of waste in production and packaging, and a no-logo or "no-brand" policy.

With over 400 shops in 17 countries worldwide, Muji chose the new Jet Blue Terminal at JFK Airport in New York for its latest outpost. The great thing about this store is that it is not a typical Muji however. It will focus on small travel sized goods and stock a small apparel section. This is a refreshing change for airport retail offerings- how many Tie Racks do we really need (who wears ties these days anyway!)?