Comment on the Comments

.....Regarding PB's comment on the previous blog posting:  Phil is certainly right about Russ Feingold former Dem. Senator from Wisconsin. He was defeated by Ron Johnson, a Republican Tea Partier.  And one wonders about the brain levels of the people of Wisconsin who voted for this guy.  It's mind boggling.  Just see if you would vote for this man...well maybe some of you would...until perhaps you knew a little about Sen. Feingold.  What is happening here is a recurrence of the Cromwellian Interregnum in England when the monarchy was abolished and Oliver Cromwell & Puritans ruled the country after Charles I was executed by them.  Of course, the Tea Party Puritans would not execute Obama.  Or would they? And how about this Puritan:

Ron Johnson has called scientists who attribute global warming to man-made causes "crazy" and has said the theory is "lunacy". He has said the source of the climate change is "sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time". (So just exactly who is crazy?)

Johnson believes marriage should be between one man and one woman and he supports the present military policy of "don't ask, don't tell". (Nice and conservative. Status quo...Don''t touch.

He opposes research funding for embryonic stem cells. Johnson has stated he disagrees with it morally and also eliminating funding would help balance the federal budget. (So what if we don't find cures for deadly diseases? We're moral)

Johnson appeared in Madison, Wisconsin at the Tea Party rally for Tax Day, April 15, 2010.He attracted the attention of the Tea Party movement when he gave two emotional speeches at Tea Party rallies. According to The New York Times, he said he "did kind of spring out of the Tea Party" and is glad to be associated with it.

Johnson has been called "a political blank slate", because not only does he have no legislative voting record, he has also never previously run for political office.

As of November 1, 2010, he had contributed $8,238,465 (64%) to his own campaign. (Ah! Our new governor beat him silly. He spent $32,000,000)

"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.