I too subscribe to the theater aspect of global politics. And good theater plays on emotions and attempts to validate hero/ heroin laudable human qualities. So I’m cautious interpreting any presentations to mass audiences. I also realize that to navigate politics of power, safe strategies, alliances, and compromises must be made. One mus…
I too subscribe to the theater aspect of global politics. And good theater plays on emotions and attempts to validate hero/ heroin laudable human qualities. So I’m cautious interpreting any presentations to mass audiences. I also realize that to navigate politics of power, safe strategies, alliances, and compromises must be made. One must be a chameleon. So call me a cynic, or skeptic, but I just view it as prudent caution. Having said that I just can’t get past the point that children are dying at the hands of a state he, and all of them support. Are some children more important than others? As a human, how does that work? Because I must be missing something.
Thoughtful and heartfelt piece by Mary. The fact that she has met and shook hands counts for a lot in my book. It’s one of the best ways read a person. So I’ll take the position I hope it was a good read and await his actions for any further judgement. I like Havel’s definition of hope but as I always say, hope is not strategy for achieving desired outcomes.
Thanks for your thoughts, Mike. I'm copying my response to Tereza C here, because I think it might explain what I think you're referring to when you say you can't get past the point that children are dying at the hands of a state he, and all of them support. Your observation that "all of them support" that state is true, and it informs my own thought process.
Here's what I wrote her: "I agree with you that his stance on Israel is not congruent with his stated beliefs about not taking sides. In fact, that incongruity made me walk away from his campaign. But eventually, in light of what I understand to be a fact (that no anti-Israel presidential candidate has ever won the election,) I decided that I was never going to find a candidate with whom I was in complete agreement on everything. I could choose to not vote -- and I still may do that, I haven't decided yet -- or I could throw my lot in with the one who seems to have the strongest connection to a moral center. And that, in my opinion, has been RFK, Jr. But everyone has their issue that matters the most to them."
I won't copy my response to Mary, but will put this in as a pointer to it. And I feel like a heel saying it, Mary, because hope is such a precious commodity these days. And I still haven't listened to the speech but I will.
I too subscribe to the theater aspect of global politics. And good theater plays on emotions and attempts to validate hero/ heroin laudable human qualities. So I’m cautious interpreting any presentations to mass audiences. I also realize that to navigate politics of power, safe strategies, alliances, and compromises must be made. One must be a chameleon. So call me a cynic, or skeptic, but I just view it as prudent caution. Having said that I just can’t get past the point that children are dying at the hands of a state he, and all of them support. Are some children more important than others? As a human, how does that work? Because I must be missing something.
Thoughtful and heartfelt piece by Mary. The fact that she has met and shook hands counts for a lot in my book. It’s one of the best ways read a person. So I’ll take the position I hope it was a good read and await his actions for any further judgement. I like Havel’s definition of hope but as I always say, hope is not strategy for achieving desired outcomes.
Thanks for your thoughts, Mike. I'm copying my response to Tereza C here, because I think it might explain what I think you're referring to when you say you can't get past the point that children are dying at the hands of a state he, and all of them support. Your observation that "all of them support" that state is true, and it informs my own thought process.
Here's what I wrote her: "I agree with you that his stance on Israel is not congruent with his stated beliefs about not taking sides. In fact, that incongruity made me walk away from his campaign. But eventually, in light of what I understand to be a fact (that no anti-Israel presidential candidate has ever won the election,) I decided that I was never going to find a candidate with whom I was in complete agreement on everything. I could choose to not vote -- and I still may do that, I haven't decided yet -- or I could throw my lot in with the one who seems to have the strongest connection to a moral center. And that, in my opinion, has been RFK, Jr. But everyone has their issue that matters the most to them."
I won't copy my response to Mary, but will put this in as a pointer to it. And I feel like a heel saying it, Mary, because hope is such a precious commodity these days. And I still haven't listened to the speech but I will.