Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Change We Can Believe In...but should we?

I really like the question that Ernie and Ryan brought up regarding the state of politics and more specifically rights talk in the past vs. in the present. Since this book is going on 19 years since it's inception a great question to ask is if we have changed some, if at all. Considering how not to recently our new president won his election on, among other things, a campaign devoted to the idea of change and hope. The idea that any significant change has occurred since the end of this book would seem to be a mistake viewed in this context. Cameron mentioned in his post a man on Fox news, this shows just how ignorant and stubborn some people are and continue to be not only because they are mislead but because they are dependent upon it. So, dismissing the last 17 years as not having any major signs of change we again ask ourselves what is the state of politics and rights talk today, April 2nd 2009 compared to when the book was published in 1991? Another secondary question is if we have not really changed since 1991, what can we say about the future? As we all know Obama won the election with a lot of help coming from the ideological perspective that change can happen. So, are we at the forefront of a new beginning or did can Obama's slogans be see as a good use of rhetoric? Lastly how do we know and what signs incline us to think this way?


  1. I think we have to keep in mind that each of the government branches have limited powers. The thing that struck me is when Glendon discusses looking toward other countries to determine our laws, at least as far as the Supreme Court is concerned. But the Supreme Court has no enforcing power--could that lead to this silence of some rights talk? Becuase if we bring it up, there is really nothing we can do about it?

    Obama seems to be crossing the seas and borders more than Bush did, so I would say that it is a safe bet that he does look at other countries models. More of a global stance.

  2. I don't think that made any sense, so here is a concise version:

    If the Supreme Court, in its law intrepreting supreme-ness, doesn't have the ability to enforce their opinions, then perhaps that is one place the silence comes from...why say something if no one listens?

    And I want to know if the European Council has any enforcement power, like INTERPOL or something.