Tag Archives: Egypt

October 10, 2012 · 4:28 pm

FREEDOM OF SPEECH SAVED BY A WALL,By Louise Annarino,October 10, 2012

FREEDOM OF SPEECH SAVED BY A WALL, By Louise Annarino, October 10, 2012

Teachable moments are what I live for. At my core I am still Professor Annarino,even though I retired that nomenclature when I retired from Ohio University. The Arab Spring, and the role of President Obama and the United States of America as supporters of rising democratic republics across north Africa and the Mid-east have created a teachable moment. It was a sign of success when world leaders gathered at the United Nations and openly discussed the human right of freedom of expression. President Mohammed Morsi of Egypt and President Abed Rabbu Mansour Hadi of Yemen affirmed a belief in the right to freedom of expression, they expressed a need to limit hate speech, including speech that insults religion and religious figures. President Asif A. Zadari of Pakistan went further, arguing that such speech should be criminalized. These leaders are struggling with the ramifications of hate speech,as we all do. However, their recommended solution to restrict speech is not the only way to deal with hate speech. The United States has been dealing with this problem since its inception. Hate groups continue to plague us,sometimes engaging in homegrown terrorism.We understand  the issue. Our cultural institutions, med1a, schools and courts address the problems such hate speech create. These new leaders have hard choices ahead; difficult decades of discord before free speech takes hold.

To some calls  to limit speech may seem a disturbing turn of events. But it is not;it is chance to explore free speech more fully. Free speech protection has taken centuries to establish itself in Europe and America beginning with the fall of the “Sun-Kings” and “Holy Roman Emperors” of Europe. We continue the struggle to protect free speech today. The institution which held it back in Europe and The Americas,and continues to assault it today, is the institution whose nature is proscriptive due to its assigned task of “preaching the gospel”, the church. I would argue that one reason freedom of speech has become secured in American culture is the separation of Church and State. In America, no longer can a population be constricted from expressing beliefs contrary to what is preached from the pulpit on Sunday, the synagogue on Saturday, or the mosque on Friday. Witches are no longer being burned in Salem. Women can express themselves as they wish, without wearing Scarlet Letters. The separation of Church and State also stops the government from putting words into the mouths of those who preach, protecting all religions equally. We the People are the WALL which separates the two forces. Thus, it is inherent that we behave responsibly and fairly with one another to keep the wall strong.

Sometimes speech should be restricted. For example, to protect human life when speech threatens to kill. Verbal assault is a crime, if it places the recipient in fear of his life AND causes actual physical harm. But, we also believe “sticks and stones may break our bones but names will never harm us.” Nor are we free to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre; the outcome of panic in a confined space certain to injure or kill. We even allow reasonable restrictions on where speech can be voiced so as not to unreasonably interfere with the ordinary course of business. Nevertheless, reasonable accomodations must be made for the speech-giver.

The fact that the door is open to such discussion among world leaders is a good thing. Of course, these leaders face the same challenge early American leaders faced  taking on their ingrained cultural institutions, including their religious institutions, in order to implement and secure the unbridled right of freedom of expression. Their task is much harder than that of early American leaders, however. They do not have a thick wall separating church and state. Until they do, free speech for their people may be elusive. Imams preaching attacks on Christians, Jews and Infidels may cause fear in those groups since it may,and occasionally does, incite adherents to commit physical assaults. Also, a protester standing in Tahrir Square with a bullhorn shouting to attack the police,military or government may incite others to violence. In Somalia, opposition efforts to overthrow Siad Barre’s oppressive communist government declined to clan warfare, resulting in unspeakable violence and a Failed State. Freedom of speech can be a double-edged sword. Dealing with these issues is always difficult;but when there is no separation of Church and State, resolving them is nigh impossible. When church leaders insist governments deny freedom of expression by anyone who does not follow their religious teachings, including poets,artists, cartoonists and authors both institutions are compromised;and, no one is free. Those who give up free speech soon lose personal freedom.

Is this the cultural difference to which new leaders ask us to be sensitive? Do they want our walls between church and state removed? Most certainly they do. We cannot agree to break down our wall between church and state. Doing so means we lose the protections ingrained in our Bill of Rights.We would no longer be a free people. We must refuse to do so; not for other nations, nor for Christian fundamentalists in our own country.

However, we can be sensitive to this issue for it is one we continually fight. We have our own version of groups who dislike the Wall and insist America is a Christian nation, when in fact it is a secular nation with a majority of Christian citizens, and many non-Christians, and non-theists. The nation belongs equally to each person, and its laws are written for all, not simply for Christians. Some Christians constantly chip away at the Wall. They insist on prayer in public schools, tax-funded vouchers for religious schools, nativity sets on the public square, and faith-based “science” teaching.

We area free people with a Bill of Rights and separation of Church and State. We hold these rights sacred and believe they are human rights. We cannot, we must not abridge freedom of speech for any religion. Is this the real reason leaders of these countries justify violence against our embassies and citizens? Is it their Church or their State making such a demand upon us? Either way it is an impossible one. As Americans we define ourselves by our freedoms.

As we head into the final days of the 2012 election, consider which candidate has the sensitivity, experience, demeanor and resolute commitment to human rights, fairness, diversity and peaceful dispute resolution. Which one has the ability to pull together diverse supporters: Black-White-Latino-Native American, immigrant and DAR, Catholic-Jew-Muslim-atheist, artists-musician-scientist-environmentalist-Big Bird, Warren Buffet big businessmen-Elizabeth Lessner small businesswoman- unions, women, LGBT community, active military-veterans-Code pink-peace activists ? Which one is open to any idea so long as it is a good one, capable of solving a problem despite who brings it forward? Which embodies our American value of free speech by the diversity of his supporters? Which candidate can lead us forward in a diverse world, with new leaders, in new countries, seeking a new way to move forward? That candidate is President Barack Obama.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 16, 2012 · 5:40 pm

TEDDY,BOOKER T. AND BARACK: JOHN 8:32,By Louise Annarino,September 16, 2012

TEDDY, BOOKER T. AND BARACK: JOHN 8:32,By Louise Annarino, September 16,2012

 

Republican Teddy Roosevelt has always been one of my favorite presidents. His Rough Riders embodied his personality when he charged up San Juan Hill on his way to the presidency. He was a man of action, admired by most, resented by party bosses in New York who tried to derail his political influence. They failed. Recently, I have been reading about his dinner with Booker T. Washington in the private quarters of the White House. Mr. Washington had been advising President Roosevelt on government appointments in the South,both men trying to find a common ground for the benefit of African-Americans facing horrific back-lash after initial political successes. Washington hoped to ease into place judges and other government administrators who would chart a fair and just path through institutional racism which was openly being laid through every governmental body. Roosevelt hoped to turn around the animosity of the Southern electorate toward Republicans, whose first president,Abraham Lincoln, had ended slavery and in the southern mind destroyed the south. These two men were fighting the nascent southern strategy. It is the same strategy put in play against efforts to elect,and re-elect, President Obama.

 

One evening, Roosevelt invited Washington to family dinner where he intended to discuss such issues. The two men had engaged in this endeavor secretly, to avoid the anticipated antipathy to such cooperation. The outcry to this dinner throughout the country was not because of what the two discussed; but, that Washington was allowed to share the table of white man and his family, with his wife present, in the White House no less. The sin committed was the sin of social equality. White America could not accept the right of a Black man to enter the white house except as a servant to the white man.

 

Today, I listened to the Sunday morning talk shows, to talking heads discussing the insult to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu because The Black Man did not invite the white man to the White House, the insult to Israel because the Black man did not follow the white man’s advice regarding handling Iran’s uranium enrichment activities. To be fair to Mr. Netanyahu, he is being used by the NeoCons to attack the Black man,and further their own agenda; but they are no friend to Israel,nor to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Using Israel and Iran as a political football is diplomatically dangerous. However, the need to dispossess the uppity Black man with the audacity (of hope) to dine (not set the table for others) in the White House, and invite whom he chooses to dine with him is just too easy a target for the right-wing ideologues, among which Netanyahu claims alliances.

 

This was not all which was discussed today. Megan McCain has joined Mr. Romney, Mr. Ryan et al in continuing the lie that President Obama apologized for and sympathized with those who attacked our embassies and killed our ambassador. Said a Romney Advisor: No Attacks If He Was Prez. Richard Williamson is a top foreign policy aide to Mr. Romney. Implying there would be no protests if Romney were in charge, he further stated  “There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation…In Egypt and Libya and Yemen, again demonstrations — the respect for America has gone down, there’s not a sense of American resolve and we can’t even protect sovereign American property.”

 

This is hypocritical grandstanding considering that Mr. Williamson was an official in the Bush administration when embassies were engulfed by protesters offended by a Danish cartoon. President Bush rightly condemned the cartoon as “unacceptable” while repeating America’s dedication to free speech. Williamson was  a diplomat serving in the U.N. in 2003 when U.N. Headquarters in Iraq was savagely attacked which killed 22 people including its top envoy,causing with-drawl from Iraq for several years. Mr. Williamson applies a different test for President Obama than for himself or his party. This is the latest effort to paint Obama as un-American. It is the latest set of lies and distortions.

 

One hopes there is room for disagreements on foreign policy. One expects political attacks. One also expects some circumspection while our security apparatus hunts for American victims, and our embassies continue to go up in flames. Insight and wisdom must also be expected. Fairness and support toward our leaders in the field making the tough decisions moment-by-moment through a crisis is the least we should expect. Politics should never trump national security.

 

Attacks will soon enough be acceptable within the public discourse. However the political attacks must be truthful.Teddy Roosevelt would have agreed. The Kansas City Star reported his remarks on this subject on May 7,1918:

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand  by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should bespoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”

Teddy Roosevelt learned much by listening to Booker T. Washington. In a letter to a friend he explained “I have always been fond of the West African proverb: “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” THEODORE ROOSEVELT,A LIFE,Nathan Miller, page 337. President Roosevelt’s speech “Citizenship In a Republic”,delivered at the Sorbonne in Paris on April 23,1910 could describe both men:

“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.“

President Teddy Roosevelt could have been describing  Sean Smith, Glen Doherty, Tyrone Woods, and Ambassador Christopher Stevens. He could also be describing the embassy staff in Egypt who tried to prevent an escalation of anger by issuing a statement,American diplomatic staff throughout  the world, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. President Roosevelt could also have been describing President Barack Obama, who speaks softly but carries the big stick of Commander-in-Chief who brought to justice Al Quaeda’s leaders including Osama bin Laden.

Will America face difficulties in this rapidly changing,inter-connected world? Of course. At its helm I prefer a person who leads with dignity,wisdom,and a big stick while speaking softly. For a soft voice calms a room to quiet for those wanting to listen and willing to learn the TRUTH about America. Those who lie lose the attention of truth seekers, the peace-makers of the world. Those who love freedom love truth: “For you shall know the truth, and the Truth shall set you free” John 8:32.

President Obama has avoided the trap of putting politics above national interest. He follows a long line of presidents, Republican- like Teddy Roosevelt, and Democratic-like Teddy’s cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who did likewise. Romney would be wise to follow their lead,but Teapublicans will never allow it.

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

September 14, 2012 · 12:28 am

WORDS OF POWER AND CIVILITY: FREE SPEECH ON LIBYA,EGYPT, AND ISRAEL, By Louise Annarino,September 13,2012

Words of Power and Civility: Free Speech on Libya, Egypt and Israel, By Louise Annarino, September 13, 2012

As Associate Director of Legal Affairs at Ohio University in Athens,Ohio, I was asked each autumn to speak to the newly-arrived International students regarding American laws, and what they needed to know to avoid legal problems while studying in the United States. I started ,as is my usual practice,with the U.S. Constitution. I then described our judicial structure, the difference between civil and criminal law, and the role of local police, state highway patrol and the FBI.  There were 2 areas students were most interested in:  traffic laws and 1st Amendment free speech issues.

Freedom of speech was a phenomenally novel concept to many of our students,whose first reaction was to question whether I had misspoken, or they had misunderstood. When I explained we could even burn our flag as show of political protest, several students inevitably leapt to their feet. This seemed beyond the pale to them, as it is for many of us. We discussed how free speech did face limits through reasonable regulations meant to keep the peace;for example,one cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theatre. I also explained that it was often a component of active civil disobedience for which dissidents must expect consequences, often a stint in jail. I told them about The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail, Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, and Ghandi’s peaceful resistance campaign against British occupation of India. I cautioned them to understand that Americans guard free speech, even when the speech is uncomfortable, inane, even hateful. We even have a children’s rhyme “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me” as a model for controlling our response to speech with which we disagree, or which is used to “attack” us. Police may intervene only to keep the peace;not to stop speech.

I have been thinking about these afternoons exploring what free speech meant to these students, what impact their new insights into American law and cultural mores would mean once they returned home. This programmed afternoon event led to many on-going friendships with students who would stop by my office to discuss American law and the Bill of Rights in the privacy of my office. We talked about African-Americans knocked off their feet by water hoses, attacked by dogs, clubbed by police as they marched for civil rights and an end to Jim Crow laws. We talked about American anti-war activists. We talked about American terrorists: KKK, Aryan Nation, CCC and other such fanatic fringe groups around the world, and their threat to civilized societies. We developed a common understanding about the dangers such groups posed not simply to life and limb but to free speech,freedom of assembly,freedom of religion, of the press etc.;and, to the very survival of government by the people. For violence breeds contempt for the speech of those who use it to instigate such violence.

I think about these young men today. I wonder what they expect of us;and,what we can expect of them. The theatre we discussed is no longer a crowded building; but, an internet of social media and viral videos. When a hate-monger on one side of the world shouts out hate-speech to arouse and instigate a response, violence on the other side of the world too often erupts. We must be sensitive to the fact that America has been blessed with immigrant influxes,especially along our coasts, which opens American society to cultural differences and reduces tribalism. Countries emerging from tribal structures to begin building democratic republics need our calming influence on such forces;not an aggressive disdain for their struggles. “Chest beating” does nothing to build the good will needed to strengthen the hand of those  fighting off the fanatic fringe. A policy of diplomacy and dignity, tolerance and respect for diversity, guidance and support for democratic reform shows President Obama’s power as a statesman. This is not a sign of weakness; but, of strength. Because he is a strong man who knows how to use the power of his office, and his personal power, he does not need to beat his chest.

“Violence as a response to speech has no place,” in society says Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

After condemning the attacks and the death of our Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three others, “Justice will be done,” says President Obama.

“It’s disgraceful that the Obama administrations’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks,” said the Romney campaign.

Rence Priebus, Chairman of the Republican Party tweeted, “Obama sympathizes with attackers in Egypt. Sad and pathetic.”

Today, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney and FOX news continued to lie about President Obama’s response in an effort to undermine his national security accomplishments, and undermine his leadership at home and abroad. Is this the action of patriots? When Americans are being attacked and killed, when we have American troops and diplomats in the field, when we should be decrying ignorant and malicious rhetoric we have a candidates for president and vice-president throwing fuel on the fires burning abroad. They blame not only President Obama but those in diplomatic service whose lives are being licked by the flames.

While diplomatic efforts by Obama and Clinton to assure the world the United States is not waging war on Islam, but on terrorism, Romney goes even further to undermine our diplomacy in the middle east, asserting that Obama is no friend of Israel. He even lied that Obama refused to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In fact, the two spoke on the phone since they will be addressing the U.N. on different dates: Netanyahu is scheduled to be in NY on the 27th,Obama on the 25th.There are disagreements between them as to strategy; but, not as to the goal of Israel’s security. Netanyahu and Romney  are double-teaming our president and his foreign policy. This is no time to play such political games. There is room for disagreement . Within Israel there is disagreement. A Netanyahu deputy disagrees on setting Iran “red line”, much as Clinton and Obama have.

Israeli Deputy Prime Minister for intelligence and atomic affairs Dan Meridor, and Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, agree with President Obama’s approach. When Mr. Romney is president he can set America’s foreign policy, but not before that event occurs. Since when does a private citizen,even one running for president, join with the leader of another nation to undermine American foreign policy?  Definitely not in the midst of rising unrest near our embassies. President Karzai canceled a trip abroad today fearing the unrest will spread within Afghanistan and against our troops. Should not Romney,Ryan,and Priebus be equally concerned about our troops?

Fact-checkers were busy today assessing Libya/Obama statements of Romney/Ryan/Priebus as untrue. Meanwhile the Neo-cons advising Romney seem eager to push them to continue to lie and create such unrest abroad it could justify their desire to increase military defense spending. Ryan and Romney insist military spending must be increased 20% to keep America safe. They are talking about increasing contracts to corporate arms producers and defense contractors with financial interest in companies such as Mr. Cheney’s Halliburton Corp. They are not talking about veteran’s benefits, which the Ryan/Romney budget cuts. They are not talking about the safety of our troops.

The sad truth is that free speech allows liars to tell untruths about political figures and celebrities because of an exception to defamation charges for public figures. One cannot sue a congressperson by a defamation claim for comments made on the floor of the House or Senate, either. Public and political figures have to defend themselves against lies all the time. We have a notion that “the truth will out”. This might have been true when newspapers,television stations and radio openly and transparently competed with one another;now, one person (or his corporation,think Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes) can own multiple media outlets, even all,within any geographical area. CITIZENS UNITED did away with any transparency requirements which would at least alert us to the names of purveyors of lies. Truth will out is a fantasy. Our town is now the entire world. And media moguls with financial,nee political,agendas rule the town.

Those who have no sacred history of free speech wonder why the U.S. does not simply arrest those hate-mongers and liars who keep throwing fuel on the fires of fanatics. They expect and ask us to arrest, and punish, such persons. While I would love to see them punished, it is not easily done when they can defend their speech as free speech. But, they must face consequences.They must be held accountable…and they will be…if we can discover who they are. Any company supporting such messages of hate, bigotry, and deception should be boycotted, its employees unionized, and its directors removed by shareholder actions. Politicians who join in the game must be denied out votes. We can use speech, our free speech, to see justice done and consequences suffered. We cannot give up our sacred freedoms but we can use them, teach them and spread them throughout this country and the world community.

Words have power, and we must use them wisely, compassionately and forcefully as have our President and Secretary of State. Thank you Mr. President and Secretary Clinton. Thank you citizens of the world, who seek freedom, including free speech for your people. As you build your new democracies,guard it well.

UPDATE/ JUST REPORTED ON RACHEL MADDOWS/9:13 PM:

Attack on Libyan embassy was not a protest but organized attack.4 cars pulled up flying black flags,witnesses say it was response to killing of Libyan AlQuaeda leader by drone attack. As we learn mire we will understand more, and perhaps strengthen our ties with a free Libya and its people.,many of whom were also injured in this attack. It is still imperative that we allow our president and secretary of state to address foreign policy and security issues abroad,and strengthen our ties to emerging democracies and persons of good will. We must hold accountable all those who would weaken and undermine our efforts to seek peace with the nations of the world,despite the difficulties we face.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

June 24, 2012 · 8:54 pm

DON'T PUSH HUMPTY DUMPTY OFF THE WALL by Louise Annarino

DON’T PUSH HUMPTY DUMPTY OFF THE WALL

Louise Annarino

June 25, 2012

Democratic republics in the West did not emerge in full blossom overnight; nor will they in the East. The seeds of power within people must be planted in good soil and be kept moist despite periods of drought. Those who feed the country’s growth are ever in danger of being choked by weeds. Egypt’s journey, and that of other nations seeking some form of democratic republic, is our own.

As we watch the Egyptian military generals write and rewrite laws to secure their power base in the face of shared power with a president and parliament not of their choosing, let us recall the first parliaments in England which were made up exclusively of the privileged few, heirs to the original land barons granted fiefs by their king for military service to protect and defend his crown, and more importantly, his crown jewels. The king was loath to part with his landholdings which generated his wealth. The barons agreed to supply a percentage of crops, minerals, forest, game and resources to the king in exchange for permission to act as lord over the serfs who were attached to the land, and to  supply troops whenever called upon to do so by the king. In this way, both the king and his barons grew excessively wealthy. Sound familiar?

In 1215 King John agreed to the Magna Carta, the great charter, which gave legal rights to the Barons and Earls and mandated that the king listen to them and follow their advice. Before the Magna Carta the king called a parliament at his whim with no legal obligation to follow the barons’ advice. The Magna Carta granted no rights to the serfs; but, merely became a tool of the landed gentry (who had personal armies supporting them) to control the king in order to protect their own interests. Sound familiar?

In 1265, following a war between Henry III and Simon De Montfort, De Montfort briefly established a parliament which also included  burgesses, representatives from each county,city and town until Edward I, who killed De Montfort in battle, called is first parliament in 1275 which included churchmen,two knights from each county, and two commoners from each town ( the house of burgesses). Since 1327 parliament set the pattern we know today: House of Lords, House of Commons, Monarch.

It took another hundred years to establish that Parliament’s House of Commons controlled granting money raised through taxation to the king (usually to wage war); and wrote statutes creating the law of the land, replacing the writ to the king for favor system of an earlier day.

Overthrowing the leaders of countries does not necessarily mean more power to the people. It took great Britain several hundred years and a civil war to do so. The United States, copied Great Britain’s lead, replacing the monarch with a president. The House of Lords became our Senate; the House of Commons our House of Representatives. There are those who pressured newly-elected President George Washington to accept the appellation Your Majesty. He insisted on Mister, in a new nation where all men are considered equal. And so we say, Mr. President when addressing him.

The U.S. shortened Great Britain’s time-line: 1776 – Declaration of Independence, 1789 – Constitution and first 10 Amendments ratified, 1789 – Judiciaries Act passed, 1803 – Marbury v. Madison. Hopefully, emerging democracies can shorten the time it takes to become nations of law and not men, and avoid civil war. Building a strong middle class will help.

The industrial revolution which began in the 1500’s with the guild movement solidified in 1760-1850. It is no coincidence that the movement to end serfdom occurred on the same time frame. Prior to industrialization in England, land was the primary source of wealth. “The landed aristocracy held enormous powers [through] the feudal system. However, a new source of great wealth grew from the Industrial Revolution, that which was derived from the ownership of factories and machinery. Those who invested in factories and machinery cannot be identified as belonging to any single class of people (landed aristocracy, industrialists, merchants). Their backgrounds were quite diverse, yet they had one thing in common: the daring to seize the opportunity to invest in new ventures. It was these capitalists who gave the necessary impetus to the speedy growth of the Industrial Revolution.”1

In the United States, the Industrial Revolution made the North economically stronger than the South, which barely maintained a landed gentry system on the backs of slave labor and that of poor white sharecroppers. The bloody rise of labor unions prevented this quasi feudal-serf system from taking root in the North. Despite fighting a Civil War to end slavery, and the efforts of labor unions, we still see vestiges of the old feudal system within our economic institutions, policies and practices both north and south. Since the election of our first African-American president those differences in how we choose to govern ourselves have become more overt. Ohio and Wisconsin, as well as every other state,thanks to ALEC, are fighting to protect unions, not just to protect the unions but to protect all workers from being reduced, once again, to serfdom. 2

In China, Thailand, Guam, Africa and all over the globe multi-national corporations are locking in workers for excessively-long shifts, with little or no pay. Human trafficking in workers, slave or forced labor, is on the rise world-wide in every imaginable  industry including my favorite – chocolate. 3

What is the connection here? It is that human beings seek power over their own lives. Money is power, so they seek money. The reason taxes are a big deal to both Tea Party Republicans and Liberal Progressives, The US Chamber of Commerce and the churches, Wall Street banks and non-profit organizations, Democratic and Republican parties, the upper class-middle class- and poor is because money buys power. Money bought the King. Money bought the Corporations. Money bought the politicians. We all want money because we all value power. Why? Power brings freedom: the freedom from want, the freedom of choice over need, the freedom of association, the freedom to say no just because we want to do so. If we truly believe we are all entitled to be free, then we must also believe we are all entitled to enough money to feel power over our own lives.

When we are without money for too long we feel powerless as a result. It is this feeling of being powerless which brings out our racism, sexism, homophobia etc. Those who feel powerless resent others who seem to be acquiring power. Hidden in our psyche is the racist belief that an African-American has no business being so powerful when white men now feel so powerless. That is the crux of this election. Even Roman Catholic bishops, losing esteem and power over their flocks due to their misogynist attitude toward women and their cover-up of pedophilia within their ranks are fighting for power by attacking President Obama. Even Christian church leaders accustomed to financial power and preaching its attainment as a Gospel truth, which fell apart in the recession, are attacking President Obama. They have no qualms viciously attacking him, trying to knock him off his game. Unfortunately, his game is governing this country we all love.

What can we do? We can stop attacking people who want power, who want money, who want to feel safe; who cannot feel truly free without these things. We all want these things. We all want freedom.

We can stop attacking each other lest we all end up “Humpty Dumpty”. 4  Despite British and American love of freedom, and each country’s Civil Wars to establish equality among all its citizens and clearly unified governance, neither would suggest civil war as a positive step. We can learn from these past divisive periods. History does not have to repeat itself around the globe, nor within our own borders. We can stop being so afraid that we needlessly try to knock one another off the wall. We can recognize that there is enough wealth to share so that all feel powerful and free.

We celebrate freedom in this country without understanding its roots. No banker, no corporate executive, no shareholder, no priest nor bishop, no Tea Bagger, no liberal, no politician, no judge, no citizen will feel free until they feel financially secure. This was the beauty of a strong middle class; it made everyone feel free. It was an imaginable state of being for the poorest citizen aspiring to move higher through education and hard work; and for the richest executive who fell from grace, a safe place to land. Without a middle class, no American feels free.Not the wealthiest, not the poorest, and not the middle class.

To America and to the world a message of freedom: Build and protect the common man’s wealth, the middle class. The BRITISH COMMONWEALTH is a not a fluke. American economic success since the Civil War is not a fluke. Stop seeking to be excessively wealthy; instead, seek to build wealth within the middle class, a commonwealth within and among nations. With commonwealth comes common power. With such a sense of power comes a sense of freedom and peace. The Eurozone is struggling with this concept as I write.

Look at what Britain accomplished. Look at what the U.S. accomplished. Those lessons will serve us well. this is what President Obama has been trying to remind us.  Destroying the middle class destroys our commonwealth, pushes Humpty Dumpty off the wall; and, neither all the king’s horses nor all the king’s men can put us back together again. Life is too fragile for such nonsense.

 

 

1. http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1981/2/81.02.06.x.html

2.http://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed 

3.http://www1.american.edu/ted/chocolate-slave.htm “Presently, about 700,000 children and women are trafficked around the world annually. The UN says that profits for this trafficking amount to approximately $7 billion a year (Anti-Slavery International).”

4.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty  “In 1648 Colchester was a walled town with a castle and several churches and was protected by the city wall. The story given was that a large cannon, which the website claimed was colloquially called Humpty Dumpty, was strategically placed on the wall. A shot from a Parliamentary cannon succeeded in damaging the wall beneath Humpty Dumpty which caused the cannon to tumble to the ground. The Royalists, or Cavaliers, ‘all the King’s men’ attempted to raise Humpty Dumpty on to another part of the wall, but because the cannon was so heavy ‘All the King’s horses and all the King’s men couldn’t put Humpty together again’. In his 2008 book Pop Goes the Weasel: The Secret Meanings of Nursery Rhymes author Albert Jack claimed that there were two other verses supporting this claim. Elsewhere he claimed to have found them in an “old dusty library, [in] an even older book”,but did not state what the book was or where it was found. It has been pointed out that the two additional verses are not in the style of the seventeenth century, or the existing rhyme, and that they do not fit with the earliest printed version of the rhyme, which do not mention horses and men.”

Leave a comment

Filed under POLITICS

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,