Wednesday, November 10, 2010

"Free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty I'm free at last." (MLK Jr.)


…..Many Tea Partiers--not all-- appear to have a distorted view of  who is entitled to individual liberty.  They claim that only “true” Americans ought to benefit from  its blessings.  Of course, the implication is that they are the true Americans and  that immigrants and other groups that are not like them are a threat to economic prosperity or national security.  Naturally, for them, freedom for these groups ought to be restricted and freedom for certain individuals no longer is a universal practice.  Liberty then becomes a privilege of the few.  However, in my view, the founding fathers intended that freedom is an inalienable right for all.  Thus, the really “true” Americans are those who still believe in that.

…..According to: Aziz Rana, an assistant professor of law at Cornell University, and the author of "The Two Faces of American Freedom", "…  In order for the Democratic Party to regain the trust of the American people they…” …must clearly explain how securing liberty rests on exerting democratic control over mammoth private companies -- by employing government to reduce the size of banks, to roll back corporate privileges and to ensure that the public has a greater say in the most important decisions. Today those social movements that articulated this vision of freedom are largely demobilized and it rests primarily with the Democratic Party leadership to carry on their aspirations

 .....The question is whether Obama and those around him still believe in these values, and whether or not they will aggressively pursue them against the fearsome opposition of the conservative right, corporate interests, and the wealthy few.

16 comments:

  1. Although Prof. Rana's credentials must be ideal, since he teaches at Cornell, I disagree with very core of his comment "In order for the Democratic Party to regain the trust of the American people...." Although the results of midterm elections imply that there is dissatisfaction with incumbants (most of whom are Democrats), I don't feel that it is a fact that the Dems have have lost trust -- beyond those who had no trust in them in the first place. There still is a large percentage of the American people who do trust the Democratic Party, so Prof. Rana needs to be a bit more precise.

    I also don't understand what "gaining democratic control over mammoth private companies" means. Does that mean whenever a company has become successful to a certain point (mammoth?), the government should take over control of it or knock it back to a smaller size? Does it mean such companies should make decisions by voting decisions of the general public instead of core managers who have experience in business? And how is "securing liberty" based on corporate decisions? I don't think unlimited, undisclosed corporate donations to politicians is good for our political system, but that's another matter.

    Wow, I didn't mean to write such a long comment.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, young man, I didn't write it; I just quoted it, no doubt to gain action or reaction. The whole theme here begins with the first paragraph and from that prologue carries on precipitously to the precarious peroration.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ruth.grimsley@virgin.netNovember 11, 2010 at 4:28 PM

    I am certain that your egregious President still believes in his ideals. However, your Constitution, which worked well before mega-wealth and bad faith set in, but now doesn't, together with the amount of money ranged against progressive policies, eg universal healthcare, will stop him. Regrettably, I am almost certain of that. But for the wretched climate, Cuz, I'd say England was the place for you! Cuz Ruth

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ellin Bliss Jaeger (North Shore '58)November 11, 2010 at 10:05 PM

    Not on point but thinking of you today on Veterans Day. Hard to believe. I'm sure I remember a tattoo of an anchor on your arm??????? But I was too young and innocent to have any idea of where you'd been and what you'd done. Though several men in our family life served, none "saw action."

    ReplyDelete
  5. For once, I agree with Cuz Ruth. Obama is indeed egregious.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The recent paralyzing Underground workers strikes, the violent student protest over enormous tuition cost increases, the decommissioning of its only aircraft carrier, and the early exit from the World Cup are good indications how the English systems are faring. I think China is the place for us all. And, without the tentacles, the food is pretty good.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Doc" wishes to thank Phil B. and Ruth for their unsolicited compliment about President Obama. He claims he never really knew the meaning of "egregious"...thought it had something to do with the regal quality of an egg. But looking it up, he found this: [from Latin ēgregius outstanding (literally: standing out from the herd). "Doc" agrees that compared to Dubya's first two years, Obama's accomplishment's have certainly been outstanding, & especially from the herd on the right & he wishes to thank both of you!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dear Ellin: "Doc" did have an anchor tatooed on his arm, but time has ravished it and it has disappeared.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My Dear friend Phil B. Let me just re-quote Ruth G's comment on the Nov.4th blog post: "WHAT is the matter with your countrymen and women? Obama's the best president they've had in half a century, and everyone wants to rubbish him and throw him out. If it were me, I'd just resign, tell the populace they don't deserve me (which is true) and go and keep bees on the South Downs." So, PB do you still agree with her "for once"? Didn't you realize that "egregious" in Britain means "outstanding"?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank goodness everyone in England speaks Latin!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Joel, there is only one place for "us" and you know where that is. USA. USA. USA. And, whatever else, "we" are all in accord on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Here is the dictionary.com definition of "egregious":

    1. extraordinary in some BAD way; glaring; flagrant: an egregious mistake; an egregious liar.

    To be fair, they also list:

    2. Archaic . distinguished or eminent.

    I do not know of any English teacher who would accept an archaic definition as being valid. This is especially true of Doc Ross whose ruthless standards of personal excellence are exceeded only by his personal standards of ruthless excellence.

    Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, and I am pleased to concur with Cuz Ruth on another matter. We truly do not deserve Obama, and he should resign.

    Doc is too clever to believe the mantra that "the Republicans have all the money." It may have been true in a past era, but not today.

    George Soros, from whom God borrows when he is running short, is only one of the many limousine liberals who put their money where their mouth is.

    And why is no one complaining about Russ Feingold's loss in Wisconsin? He is a man of principle who had the courage to vote against both the Iraq War and the Patriot Act. Feingold also refused to accept contributions from the mighty.

    Whether you like his politics or not, Russ Feingold deserves our respect. Yea, verily.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Speaking of "ruthless standards of personal excellence," let's hear it for the Baron who is the epitome of high-mindedness. Aristotle would be proud.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I think Obama is gregarious.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Since Obama has such pleasant memories of Indonesia, maybe he will make aliyah and return to his childhood home.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ha! HA! PB made me laugh with his poor attempt to imitate Sarah Palin! He should keep his day job.

    ReplyDelete