Civility is not a sign of weakness . . . . fifty years ago today:AdvertisementShow Comments ( 12 )Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.7 years agoWOOOOOOOOOW! Thank you, thank you so much, Mr. K.C. for posting JFK's inauguration speech today. And please keep it posted for as long as is possible. I would like this generation to see and hear what civility looks and sounds like! It is respectful, inclusive, positive, generous, affirming, empowering and more! Thank you again.david power7 years agoWhy does he speak exactly like Mayor Quimby from the Simpsons? :) 7 years agoMilton Freidman's take on this famous quote was not so flatering:“Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic ‘what your country can do for you’ implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man’s belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, ‘what you can do for your ‘country’ implies the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary.”http://cafehayek.com/2011/01/chicago-and-camelot.htmlAs in refered to in this liink, another way to translate Kennedy's famous line is: “Ask not what I can do for you – ask what you can do for me.”Stanley Kopacz7 years agoWhy should I care what Uncle Miltie thought? Kennedy said "country", not "government". It's Friedman that made the twisted substitution. "Country" implies bonds and feelings that transcend crass individualism and greed. Perhaps the part of the brain that allows these feelings didn't develop in Friedman's hemispheres. Free men in a free society? Now we are becoming individual serf units in an oligarchic society thanks to extremist fundamentalist neoliberalism.ANd government is in the service of the few now, not the many. And it's doing its job well, although not as well as the Republicans would like. We have to destroy Social Security and any service of the people. The Democrats are a pathetic counterpoint if they even are one.7 years agoStanley,This is the kind of ad hominem rhetoric that does not further a discussion or conversation: "Perhaps the part of the brain that allows these feelings didn't develop in Friedman's Hemispheres"You can disagree with Freidman or me. Just state your argument.Peace,Joe7 years agoOh my God, there we go again! Always finding faults/flaws! Okay, my lips are sealed. I won't add to the fire!Vince Killoran7 years agoI know from reading Stanley in the past that he can fend for himself but he DID engage in the argument (and, unlike all the name-calling that goes on on this blog, he poked fun at the deceased Milton F.)I can't resist this story about Friedman upon his death a few years ago:Art Hilgart, a retired industrial economist, recalls hearing Friedman lecture in 1991 and recommend the destruction of Medicare, welfare, the postal system, Social Security and public education. The audience was dumbfounded.Finally, a brave young woman asked what this would mean for poverty. "There is no poverty in America," Friedman instructed. A clear voice arose from the back of hall: "[email protected]#!!" The audience cheered wildly. 7 years agoMr. Clark,Are you scolding me for pointing out an ad hominem attack?7 years agoI am not a Friedman worshiper but he did care about raising the standard of living for all people. He had cogent arguments and data about why government failed to do this. He would back up his assertion with data but get attacked with emotion. The reaction to my post of his quote is not surprising.Vince Killoran7 years agoJoe-It seems like we discussed Friedman recently, no?The problem with Friedman was exactly this: he didn't back up his assertion with "data" but, rather, helped to usher in "micro economics" in which the workings of the economic structures were reduced largely to theoretical models of individual behavior. Who could suppress their laughter at the absurdity of his claim that there is no poverty in the USA? Stanley Kopacz7 years agoJoe,You quoted Friedman and he wasn't even talking about economics. He was distorting Kennedy's statement into something he never said. Sorry, but I heard the speech live on television and I know what it meant. The worst thing was that it unrealistically raised my hopes for this country. And where are we after 30 years of Friedman's economic philosophy in action? Pottersville.BTW, I'm no Kennedy worshipper. But at least he didn't start WWIII.Jim McCrea7 years ago"Milton Freidman's take on this famous quote was not so flatering:"That is no great surprise. But, then, most of what Friedman had to say and recommend was far from flattering to the American public as a whole.