Risking the game
One of the most obvious things to other would be leaders is there are risks in the game. These are the calculated actions that help, not repeatable, but significant. Corner turning moments captured by the media and represented as somehow world changing or significant. Sometimes they are significant. Like the day that Dr Martin Luther King stood up and spoke of his dream. Oprah's favourite moment. So it is signficant as heck.
How about Hillary's tears. Although it is repeatable, it is not a moment that should or should not be repeated, for goodness sake. Hillary is best when she, like Obama is both well rehearsed, relaxed and spontaneous.
Relaxing before the world's every moment recorded as reality by the snapping news hungry digital dissection services that are providing the adverting haul of the century.
Nature - that is what will win the election. Our sense of being ourselves, or in the case of folk from the U.S of A - their-selves.
The noble possess power and allow others to exhibit full dignity. Not sharing power - for example those who "own" the mineral rights of the land wreaked sluicing out the coal, diamonds or ore - the ignoble disinheritance of the land is gradually being reversed in Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Spiritual ownership does not represent much if there are no rights associated with it. Perhaps mineral rights? Conflict with indigenous rights present deep trouble to post colonial government. And empowering rather than asset stripping the indigenous folk of New Zealand has resurrected one of the greater cultures mankind has devised with a rich system of roots over a thousand years inhabiting this land, an evolved system of justice, government and a sense of enterprise.
The culture never went away, but "mainstream" perception of it was entirely lacking. White culture perhaps is so as it used bleach on its perceptions. How else can you cover the crime of slavery or enforced possession via convenient acts of war?
The right wing governments say "move on - move on" from all this regression into yesteryear and the multitude of injustices that can be harvested from history.
There does come a point where moving on is more practical, but what point is there allowing the ideals of slavery to rule our existence?
There comes a point when risking the game is necessary, when your principles take front seat and you stake your claim in your corner. Candidates that have achieved that seem to get ahead. Unless their view is too different from the norm.
Sounds like I am saying that Hillary can win? I doubt it. I think the winds of change have blown the electorate off its conventions and balance.
How about Hillary's tears. Although it is repeatable, it is not a moment that should or should not be repeated, for goodness sake. Hillary is best when she, like Obama is both well rehearsed, relaxed and spontaneous.
Relaxing before the world's every moment recorded as reality by the snapping news hungry digital dissection services that are providing the adverting haul of the century.
Nature - that is what will win the election. Our sense of being ourselves, or in the case of folk from the U.S of A - their-selves.
The noble possess power and allow others to exhibit full dignity. Not sharing power - for example those who "own" the mineral rights of the land wreaked sluicing out the coal, diamonds or ore - the ignoble disinheritance of the land is gradually being reversed in Aotearoa, New Zealand.
Spiritual ownership does not represent much if there are no rights associated with it. Perhaps mineral rights? Conflict with indigenous rights present deep trouble to post colonial government. And empowering rather than asset stripping the indigenous folk of New Zealand has resurrected one of the greater cultures mankind has devised with a rich system of roots over a thousand years inhabiting this land, an evolved system of justice, government and a sense of enterprise.
The culture never went away, but "mainstream" perception of it was entirely lacking. White culture perhaps is so as it used bleach on its perceptions. How else can you cover the crime of slavery or enforced possession via convenient acts of war?
The right wing governments say "move on - move on" from all this regression into yesteryear and the multitude of injustices that can be harvested from history.
There does come a point where moving on is more practical, but what point is there allowing the ideals of slavery to rule our existence?
There comes a point when risking the game is necessary, when your principles take front seat and you stake your claim in your corner. Candidates that have achieved that seem to get ahead. Unless their view is too different from the norm.
Sounds like I am saying that Hillary can win? I doubt it. I think the winds of change have blown the electorate off its conventions and balance.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Home