"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.

Veterans' Day and Heroism

This Thursday is Veterans’ Day and I am reminded about something I have thought about for many years and on many occasions; that is, the concept of "heroism". Webster defines heroism as "a heroic act especially in fulfilling a high purpose or attaining a noble end." A friend upon introducing me to a grandchild recently told him that I was a "war hero". I never cared for that designation, and I told the youngster—a teenager-- that the true heroes were not the survivors, but those who fought and didn't come back. The fact that I was awarded medals does not make me heroic; they simply document the quantity and quality of my service in WWII.  People tend to make heroes of "warriors" when actually heroism abounds in the lives of ordinary people--people with the moral virtues and courage to accept and meet the challenges of life, people who aspire to greatness, who attempt to “fulfill a high purpose”, people who change our lives and ultimately the lives of others.   Sir Edmund Hillary didn’t say the mountain was “too high.” Lincoln didn’t say Emancipation was “too controversial”. Both found themselves in conditions demanding  indomitable  courage.   They aspired to greatness, and they achieved it.

In Aristotle's “ Ethics" he defines the moral virtues--such as "courage"--as being in a "mean state" between two vices--one of defect and one of excess. Consequently courage is a virtue; foolhardiness is a “ defect” in that it involves a lack of sufficient fear, and cowardice is a defect which is an excess of fear that prohibits action. So, by this philosophy, who is the hero? Certainly not the person who is without fear. It is the person who has an excess of fear but who overcomes it in order to change his own life and perhaps the life of another--or many others. My heroes are Joan d'Arc,  Julius Caesar (who went to the Senate in spite of dire warnings), Lincoln, Einstein, the Wright Brothers, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, and Drs. Salk and Sabin.

A full life offers many opportunities for heroism. In New York on 9/11 the firefighters knew their job was dangerous, and for certain when they entered the towers to rescue people they were not without fear. The fire was their antagonist, but they pressed on to “fulfill a high purpose” with nobility and courage. They were heroes. No matter what your job or situation happens to be, life deals you a hand; if you don't leave the table, but stay the game, you too can be a hero. A soldier in battle, faces death at any moment; yet he knows what he must do. If he sees a grenade thrown at his buddy's feet and he throws his body on it--it's an automatic act; fear or fearlessness does not enter into his action. It is something that he must do. And those who were never in battle, find it impossible to understand. Thus if we attempt to find  heroes in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan—then what is the “high purpose” that we are trying to fulfill? And what is “the noble end”? (World War II had it; Vietnam did not). That is what the families of the American dead will be asking. And if I were fighting in those wars, I would be asking the same thing.  And my answer would be “There is no high purpose; nor is there a noble end.” And insofar as my being a "war hero" to the grandson, I've done more heroic things in my life out of uniform rather than in it.

"The insolence of wealth will creep out." (Samuel Johnson)

…..Today in Florida we have a newly elected governor who spent $73 million dollars out of his own big pocket in order to buy an election!   That’s right—73 mil.  I hope he has enough left to buy himself a decent meal; or if not that, a toupee.  More money was spent in this election than any other that I can remember.  Many candidates had corporate donations to spend on media spots in order to get elected.  It appears that in American politics  in the 21^st Century one cannot get elected if not wealthy.  Consequently, I don’t believe we have a Democracy any longer in this nation.  Corporate greed is leading us more and more toward a plutocracy.  According to Webster, A Democracy is:

 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

…..Now, anyone reading this must come to the conclusion that the “supreme power” is not vested in the people any longer—it’s invested in the wealthy politicians who will vote for any legislation that does not operate against their financial station and which does not affect the financial interests of the corporations and individuals who contribute to their election funds.  Consequently, once more, I believe that we now are governed by a Plutocracy.  If only the wealthy can afford to run for public office, are we not more a plutocracy than a democracy?  The masses of the American people go to the polls like sheep to vote for candidates they had no opportunity to choose.  They were chosen only by the vested interests in the political party to which they belong.  Oh, quiet!  I know that I don’t know what I’m talking about.  It’s all in my imagination.