What is the intention of your story. I thought it to be a lot to be desired.
It's kinda like Vietnam, you had to of been there.
"He didn't even have the satisfaction of being killed for civil rights.
It's — it had to be some silly little Communist." —
Jacqueline Kennedy, Nov. 22, 1963I was surprised that Mrs. Kennedy
was surprised that a communist was the assassin. Of course it was a communist!
Communism was the greatest threat to America in 1962. The moment I heard of the
assassination, I thought that communists were the cause. George Will
is right; there has been a major rewrite of History. George Orwell alluded to
This article is not so much about revisiting the assassination of JFK as it is
about the liberal response to it. He said liberalism changed after that event:
"The new liberalism-as-paternalism would be about correcting other
people's defects." It changed from a spirit of optimism to one of
social indictment. It was the point at which liberalism co-opted social
scientists and engineers for their new cause of transforming society into their
image. As evidence of this new perspective, one needs only to
remember the massive social engineering initiatives under the LBJ
administration. Ronald Reagan, he points out, revived the liberal spirit of
optimism during his administration.
Then, if you believe he was killed by the mafia (because he double-crossed
them), it sorta changes all the perceptions.
AS usual, George's worldview is all twisted up. To him, the great liberal
advances JFK lived for -- civil rights, Medicare,environmental protection, etc.
-- are about "correcting other people's defects." No kidding. How
about the defects of those who would deny voting rights to blacks, those who
would bankrupt old people needing medical help, and those who would trash our
environment for personal profit? I would say those people's defects needed
correcting in a big way.
They changed them from classical liberals into the authoritarians that you see
I love when someone like George decides to tell me how I think and feel. Such a
Spring street: how is that different from any other social philosopher?
It's what they do, even the ones you agree with.
@SEYSocial Philosopher? I think that maybe a stretch don't you?
Political pundit maybe the phrase you are looking for.
Spring street: whatever works for you. At any rate, that's what the lot of
them do. Either you agree with them or you don't. Each critic has his
opposition all figured out and explains them to his audience. Don't you
agree? I'm not arguing, just making an observation.
Of course the conservatives accused Kennedy of being a communist threat to
America and ahout just as much or more vitriol as they are now about Obama. Nothing changes. But whatever the intention of the article, it seems to
be trying in a strange way to say the democrats blamed conservatives for the
assassination which I have never heard. Ever.
@SEYI don't think they have them "All figured out" that is
the problem I have with such "critic" regardless of their political
strips, Their only purpose in life seems to be as divisive as possible. there is
a reason I do not watch MSNBC, bill maher, Micheal Moore etc. I may share
similar political views but garbage in garbage out.