"Two households, both alike in dignity, In fair Verona, where we lay our scene, >From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean."
In the historically determined republican tradition of the USA there is no aristocracy. But dynasties have existed, from the Adams to the Roosevelts. The past hundred years has seen two of them - the Kennedys and the (Walker) Bushes. Sometimes, from the outside, Kennebunkport and Hyannis Port look very similar. But the family traditions of dynastic prosperity and public service have developed in different ways. Real life soap opera, including Dubya trying to play J.R. Ewing in Texas ... Francis On 31 Aug., 15:07, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > I have to go with Rigsy and Francis on this one. Casting our > conscientious votes is only one way for us to participate in our > larger communities - there are thousands available to us. We can sit > back and talk about the problems we see (thus bringing more of them > into our experience,) blame others, question motives etc,. but that > really doesn't do anything but isolate us further. Taking that first > step, say into public service, thinking and feeling in ways that > express our fraternity or connection will again, bring more of that > into individual and collective experience. We each must take > responsibility for ourselves and the whole, and visa versa. It begins > with each of us. No one is going to do it for us. > > There has been a great deal of air time to the Kennedy family and > their devotion to public service, especially Ted, who had a hand in > every US program that aids and equalizes opportunities for people it > seems. The Kennedy's are human, they fall and are redeemed before our > eyes. But they are not afraid to step into the thick of it, as Jack > did, inheriting the cold war with the bully Kruchev and going public > with the Cuban crisis, trying to unwrangle and warm things up. Jack, > Robert and Ted, it seems to me, never lost sight of the fact that we > are all connected, that any US hunger is hunger for all of us, each > success is success for all of us. It has been inspiring to watch this > family over the years because each of these men and many others in the > family have been golden examples of what it means to actually love > humanity. Not saying so to be polite or posture, but actually love > humanity...to be willing to get into the trenches like Neil and > negotiate and work hard with what is available to help people, get > your hands dirty, ease suffering, and lead others into hope and > brotherhood. It is not surprising to me that these three Kennedy's > were able to move so many people together into hope for a better > tomorrow, they believed that vision of tomorrow is possible today, and > people followed. It doesn't mean they weren't human, we all are. It > doesn't mean they didn't make mistakes, we all do. It means they > lived as if we are all connected, and what they did, thought and felt > effected everyone in the country and the world - and they showed us > that this is so. > > On Aug 31, 7:24 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > We get the system(s) we have allowed to exist so we are part of the > > problem. > > > On Aug 30, 11:37 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > “…The US electorate decided in 2002, 2004 and 2006 not to give them > > > practical majorities…” – fran > > > > Well, it might appear to be the case to many fran. And, knowing that > > > voting fraud is as old as voting is, I still will provide one list of > > > issues when it comes to the black box. > > > >http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/1954.html > > > > Here is another. I no longer wear rose colored glasses when it comes > > > to the veracity of vote tallies. > > > >http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/8.html > > > > For those who care about election results and wish to get any sleep at > > > night, do NOT read any of the above! > > > > And, as to the current topic, yes, it does appear that there are those > > > who carry the belief that the ends justify the means. > > > > On Aug 30, 10:43 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 30 Aug., 17:51, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Yes, you have good points except that Guantanamo went on for seven > > > > > years. There was plenty of outrage, yet It is still not over. > > > > > I'll just quickly take up one point here. Yes, the USA needed 7 years > > > > to tackle the Guantanamo question. In this period there were two mid- > > > > term elections and two presidential elections - only after the last of > > > > these did things finally start to move. The basic "facts" pertaining > > > > to Guantanamo were generally known from the beginning. There were also > > > > figures who presented themselves (more or less) as alternatives to > > > > Bush's politics and measures. The US electorate decided in 2002, 2004 > > > > and 2006 not to give them practical majorities. Like it or not, those > > > > of us living in systems which organise themselves according to the > > > > principle of representative democracy have to accept election results > > > > (as long as they are generally regarded as being fair). The > > > > unfortunate fact is that, despite the question of legitimacy regarding > > > > Bush's first term (I'll leave it to Chris to educate us in the > > > > peculiarities of Florida election procedures, should he wish), the > > > > majority of those who voted in November 2004 in the USA gave Dubya a > > > > second term. Confused, misled, lied-to, foxxed as the electorate may > > > > have partly been, the majority of US Americans who bothered to vote > > > > chose to ignore the alternative views being presented and confirmed > > > > Bush, his regime and his policies for a second term. > > > > > It took so long, because it took so long for the majority of voters in > > > > the US to finally look at what was really going on. But, seen in a > > > > purely US context, that was as much the responsibility of "us" (the > > > > voting electorate, who gave Bush a continued mandate) as it was of > > > > "them" (the politicians who carried on doing what they were doing). > > > > Try as we may, we cannot abdicate responsibilities - or pass them on, > > > > like a blank cheque, to someone else. > > > > > "If we have this power you speak of, why do these things not only > > > > > > occur, but carry on for years and years?" > > > > > Because it often takes that long for us to realise our > > > > responsibilities and do something about them, that's why. > > > > > Francis- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
