Very different, so true. I have not lived to see the Bushes connect with people in any meaningful way, other than to run successful political campaigns to sway vote.
On Aug 31, 9:52 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > "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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
