50th Anniversary of Kennedy's Inauguration

Fifty years ago on this day, a young, dapper American president rose to the podium and delivered an inaugural address that would resonate for decades to come.

For those who witnessed it, Kennedy's inauguration day was anything but smooth. It was freezing. A snowstorm wreaked havoc in Washington, nearly cancelling the inaugural parade.

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country," said John F. Kennedy in a riveting call to service. "My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man."

The U.S. Army was put in charge of clearing the streets and former president Herbert Hoover missed the swearing-in ceremony because he couldn't fly into the city. When the ceremony did start, a lectern caught fire during the invocation, which some complained was too long, and Vice President Lyndon Johnson fumbled his words during his swearing-in.

Yet the mood surrounding the event was one that Americans hadn't felt in years.

"There was this tremendous sense of vigor and yes, hope and optimism. It was also a time when we were entering a huge economic boom," remembers ABC News contributor Cokie Roberts, a college freshman at the time who was unable to make it to the inauguration because of the snow.

Kennedy's uplifting inaugural address, remembered by some historians as one of the best in the nation's history, challenged Americans to serve their country at a time when the Cold War simmered overseas and the civil rights struggle grew at home.


"A lot of people who are the senior statesmen of today were the kids in that era who came because of Kennedy, and they came because they were asking what they could for their country," she said.

"The inaugural address was certainly incredibly well-received. And the whole gravity, the credence and the whole business of the torch has gone forth to a new generation, that was absolutely true," Roberts said. "The visual image of the turnover from Eisenhower to Kennedy, it was very striking -- a man who was a general in World War II versus this man who was the second youngest president, who was a kid on a PT boat."

Kennedy's election marked many firsts for the United States. At age 43, he was the youngest president to be elected. Teddy Roosevelt came to the White House at 42, but he replaced William McKinley, who was assasinated. Kennedy was also the first, and to this date, the only Catholic elected as commander-in-chief and he brought a sense of excitement to many American Catholics that hasn't been seen since.

Those close to him also remember him as an amiable, funny president, a marked departure from his predecessor, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

"President Kennedy, the first time he met you he asked your name and he never forgot it. The second time, he asked your wife's name and your children's names, and he was personable with the agents and very much a free spirit compared to President Eisenhower," said Gerald Blaine, a Secret Service agent in Eisenhower and Kennedy's security detail and co-author of the "The Kennedy Detail: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence." "It was such a contrast because he was so young and was totally different."

Tweet

By utama with

Ireland's PM to make statement

A number of ministers have told Cowen he needs to step down following revelations he played golf with the former chairman of Anglo Irish Bank just months before the scandal-riddled lender was taken into state care.


If Cowen decides to resign as head of Fianna Fail he could stay on as caretaker prime minister and call a parliamentary election, as already planned, once the last piece of legislation underpinning the budget is passed, likely in February.


"The Taoiseach (prime minister) has decided what he is going to decide and it is a matter for the Taoiseach to articulate that and not me," Deputy Prime Minister Mary Coughlan told state radio RTE.


"He will be making a public announcement later on in the evening."




But remaining on as premier without the full confidence of his own colleagues would be difficult and he may decide to dissolve parliament and call an immediate election instead.


The media reports have revived allegations of cozy relations between Fianna Fail and the bankers and property developers whose reckless loans brought the country's economy to its knees forcing Dublin to seek a humiliating EU/IMF bailout last year.


Such allegations have spooked some senior cabinet colleagues and backbench MPs already fearful of losing their seats in what is set to be a record rout for the Fianna Fail party in the upcoming poll.

Tweet

By utama with

Sarah Palin showing a light on political rhetoric caustic

In a eight-minute video posted on her Facebook page, Palin thwarted her critics' claims that her firearms-infused political attacks contributed to the gruesome assassination attempt of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Democrat of Arizona, in Tucson, which led to the deaths of six and left as many as 14 wounded.

"Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. Especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence that they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible," Palin remarks in the video released early Wednesday.

Incidentally or rather ironically, Palin was trying to defend herself from the allegations that her words caused the 22-year-old suspected gunman Jared Loughner into taking the violent step when she blurted out the words heavy with religious symbolism that has stirred off a huge storm now.

The "blood libel" takes root in an ugly accusation slapped against Jews that they murdered Christain children and used of their blood to make matzos, a cracker-like unleavened bread, for Passover, a festival. The blood accusation has been one among many claims used to justify the persecution of Jews.

The Arizona shooting has been on the news ever since the incident and the media coverage has been fraught with rhetorics. Shortly after the tragedy, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik claimed "vitriolic rhetoric" was a potential source for the violence.

Vitriol refers to sulfuric acid, one of the most corrosive substances and most dangerous chemicals. Vitriol, which stems from Latin 'vitrium' meaning 'of glass', has been used poetically since ages. The word recently figured the political warfare. In April 2010, President Barack Obama referred to some cable talk shows as vitriol.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik's eloquent linking of Saturday's devastating shooting to "the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government", had sparked off debates over words and language leading to actions.

However, the latest from Palin has raised other questions. While media questions if Palin even completely understood the implication of the usage of "blood libels", linguists have explainted why the usage of this particular phrase has invoked so much anger.

By using the specific and intense sense of "blood libel" to refer to verbal criticisms, Palin has implied an equivalence between both circumstances.

The Atlantic Wire quoted famous linguist Deborah Tannen as explaining that the whole episode is a case of semantic bleaching, a phenomenon where a word or term with a specialized meaning takes on a more generalized set of associations with time. The linguistics professor argued that the words and phrases lose their literal meaning over time, while other contentions included the possibility of the term simply thought to mean "a false accusation regarding responsibility for harm to others."

Meanwhile, Sharron Angle, the unsuccessful GOP Senate candidate from Nevada, has also refused allegations that her campaign rhetoric played a role in Tuscon shooting attack.

In a statement, Angle said, "I have consistently called for reasonable political dialogue on policy issues to encourage civil political education and debate."

"Inappropriately attributing blame of a singular tragedy to achieve a political agenda is contrary to civil discourse, and is a media ploy to which I refuse to belong."

Allegations against Angle stemmed from her feiry campaign rhetoric targeted against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, when she suggested that voters would turn to "Second Amendment" remedies if they had no other way to settle grievances with Congress.

Tweet

By utama with

Criticism of Palin to The Producers 'Blood Libel' as Supporters Cite Sharron Angle Speech Limits

Sarah Palin made a call to conscience Wednesday for those who would manufacture "a blood libel" for last weekend's Arizona shooting, saying "acts of monstrous brutality ... begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively" with Americans exercising their constitutional freedoms.
The former Republican vice-presidential candidate, the target of many pontificators ascribing motive to gunman Jared Lee Loughner, charged in the Tucson attack that killed six and injured 14 others, had been silent since shortly after the Saturday shooting when she issued a two-line statement offering her prayers for the families and victims.
But Palin's name -- and those of others, including Republican Senate candidate Sharron Angle -- had been central in the early accusations over what spurred the shooting. Liberal media pundits assigned blame by citing Palin's political action committee's website, which showed crosshairs on districts that it was targeting in the November midterm, including the district of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the believed target of the gunman who was wounded in the shooting.
Others said Angle's comments on the campaign trail also incited violence. The debate about heated political rhetoric ratcheted up so quickly and vigorously -- even before Loughner had been identified as the alleged shooter -- some Democratic lawmakers called for curbs on free speech.
In a Facebook posting issued Wednesday morning, Palin lamented the "irresponsible statements" of those casting blame on political figures.


"If you don't like a person's vision for the country, you're free to debate that vision. If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible," Palin said.

 
She added that claims that the political rhetoric is somehow more heated today than ever before seem unfounded, noting that "back in those 'calm days'" of the Republic, political differences were occasionally settled with "dueling pistols."
Palin was immediately criticized for the statements, including her use of the term "blood libel," which historically has referred to the Medieval effort to try to demonize Jews by falsely accusing them of murdering Christians to use their blood in ritual.
"You know, Sarah Palin just can't seem to get it, on any front. I think she's an attractive person, she is articulate," Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., reportedly told the Bill Press radio show. "But I think intellectually, she seems not to be able to understand what's going on here."
But Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Palin's use of the term "blood libel," saying it "has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse.
"There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term," he told BigGovernment.com.
As Palin decried the exploitation of the Arizona shooting, some lawmakers said federal regulations are needed to stop heated speech.
Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., on Monday referenced a comment by Angle in calling for a change in the nation's political dialogue -- by will or by law.
"'Don't retreat, reload.' Someone in Nevada saying we may need to use Second Amendment remedies. There's only one way to read this," Slaughter said.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., told Fox News that Angle "talked about people rising up and taking over the government by force, using their guns. She was very explicit."
Sherman said that even if language used by Angle and her supporters hadn't incited the shootings in Arizona, eventually it will lead to violence.
"I'm saying if you have a heart attack, stop smoking, not because nicotine may or may not have caused your last heart attack, you'll never know, but it's going to cause the next one," Sherman said. "And if we continue to bring into the mainstream and treat as civil those who call for violence and disruption and assassination and revolution and insurrection, then whether that caused what happened in Tucson or not, it will cause the next tragedy."
Angle defended herself in a statement released late Tuesday.
"Expanding the context of the attack to blame and to infringe upon the people's constitutional liberties is both dangerous and ignorant. The irresponsible assignment of blame to me, Sarah Palin or the Tea Party movement by commentators and elected officials puts all who gather to redress grievances in danger," Angle said.
"Finger-pointing toward political figures is an audience-rating game and contradicts the facts as they are known," Angle added. "I have consistently called for reasonable political dialogue on policy issues to encourage civil political education and debate. Inappropriately attributing blame of a singular tragedy to achieve a political agenda is contrary to civil discourse, and is a media ploy to which I refuse to belong."
In the wake of the shooting, the National Hispanic Media Coalition used the incident to reiterate its call for the FCC to update its definitions of hate speech in media. It also asked the FCC to "examine the extent and effects of hate speech in media, and non-regulatory options for counteracting the violence that extreme rhetoric breeds."
Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pa., said he has no knowledge about what motivated Loughner to attack Giffords and the others, but he still wants legislation that bans the use of certain imagery when talking about congressional targets.
"I want to eliminate what may have been," Brady told Fox News. "I'm not a psychologist ... All I'm saying is you can't put a bull's eye or a crosshair on a member of Congress."
And on Tuesday, Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore., was quoted in the Oregon Statesman-Journal saying he blamed conservative media personalities like Fox News' Glenn Beck and radio host Rush Limbaugh.
"I hold them personally responsible. I don't know how they can sleep at night after this," Schrader said.
Loughner, the accused gunman with no discernible connection to American political discourse, has not stated why he allegedly shot 20 people in the assault at a Tucson Safeway grocery store. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the community college student who had been suspended last October had frequented gaming websites seeking answers to questions about why he couldn't find a job or get a girlfriend.
More than a decade ago, lawmakers like Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., warned that violence in movies and video games could cause violence in life. But graphic imagery and heated rhetoric moved to the political theater long before that.
Several recent examples have been offered from both sides of the aisle, including President Obama's quoting from the film "The Untouchables" in which appears the statement, "If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun."
And even before movie references, crosshairs and bull's eyes, "battlefields" were drawn across campaign and policy landscapes. President Lyndon Johnson's State of the Union speech called for a figurative "War on Poverty," a precursor to the Reagan administration's equally figurative "War on Drugs."
Slaughter said that while she's not up to speed on current regulations, the Federal Communications Commission should work to sanction broadcasts that could incite people to violence.
"No one owns the airwaves," Slaughter said. "They are owned by the people."
If lawmakers were to seek remedies to quiet distasteful discussion, the so-called Fairness Doctrine is at the top of lists inspiring supporters and alarming opponents.
Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., told National Public Radio said he "came up in a time that the Fairness Doctrine did not allow media outlets to say things about a candidate or a person in public office without giving that person equal time to respond. And I really believe that everybody needs to take a look at where we are pushing things, and may need to take a serious step back and evaluate what's going on here."
Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, said any effort to "use the Arizona tragedy as an excuse to criminalize conservative thought through the FCC" will "backfire magnificently."
"The country is learning that a) there was no conservative 'hate' speech that inspired this killer, and b) that this monster wasn't even a conservative! In the face of those realities, any attempt to tar Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, or any other conservative leader as responsible in any way will be met with outrage by the American people. If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun -- as they say," Bozell said.
And not every politician may be on board with a hasty turn to bottling up dissenting voices. Delivering a speech Tuesday, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said media have the power to inspire, motivate and inform. "But they also have the power to inflame and incite. The seething rhetoric has gone too far."
However, Leahy added, "In a free society, the society that we Americans must always want our country to be, the government should not and must not restrain free expression."
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., also suggested Tuesday in a speech at the Center for American Progress that the blame game has no winner.
"The big question wasn't whose rhetoric was right or wrong, but whether our political conversation was worthy of the confidence and trust of the American people," he said.

Source : Here 

Tweet

By utama with

Sarah Palin's 'blood libel' statement on the Tucson shootings

Sarah Palin's video statement on the Tucson shootings is an interesting example of how meanings can change over time and can be ripped from their original context. This was obviously a well-crafted statement, not something said off the cuff, so Palin and her advisers certainly thought carefully about whether to include these elements.In the new Fact Checker, from time to time we will provide context for the terms that politicians use without awarding any Pinocchios.

Blood libel

Sarah Palin: "If you don't like their ideas, you're free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible."

The Fact Checker: The term "blood libel" has a very distinct history. It refers to the false accusation, dating back centuries, that Jews sacrificed Christian children for various nefarious or even religious purposes - such as using their blood as an ingredient in the unleavened bread in Passover ceremonies. It was a core tenet of anti-Semitism, widely believed in medieval times and beyond, and it often resulted in persecution, murders and other actions against Jews. A pro-Israel Web site lists more than two dozen examples of blood libel against Jews over the centuries, including as recently as 2005 in Russia.



Palin's use of the term has sparked controversy, in part because she is not Jewish and has often spoken of the United States as a Christian nation, and in part because the target of the shooter, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), is Jewish. The liberal pro-Israel group J Street tweeted, "We hope @SarahPalinUSA will recog that Jews are pained by, take offense at use of 'blood libel.' "

But the "blood libel" phrase had already been used in the context of the Tucson tragedy. Conservative commentator Glenn Reynolds first raised it in an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, asking, "Where is the decency in blood libel?" Others on the right picked up the phrase as well, leading conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg to wonder if this was appropriate.
"Historically, the term is almost invariably used to describe anti-Semitic myths about how Jews use blood - usually from children - in their rituals. I agree entirely with Glenn's, and now Palin's, larger point. But I'm not sure either of them intended to redefine the phrase, or that they should have," he wrote.

But Jim Geraghty, another commentator for the National Review, quickly collected many other examples of commentators and politicians using the phrase "blood libel" out of context. These include references to Sen. John F. Kerry's testimony to the Senate as Vietnam War veteran and the recount battle in Florida after the 2000 election.

None of those examples, of course, involved such a high-profile individual as Palin. Now that she has used the phrase, the attention surrounding it might yank it back to its origins - or turn it into a new political talking point increasingly divorced from its original meaning


Source : Here

Tweet

By utama with