"It Would Take Lots Of Stamps"
Via a reader, a great holiday story. Remember when this sort of optimism and faith in our own benevolence defined our national character? Question for readers: under which presidential candidate would that be most likely to flourish again?
posted by The Cunning Realist at Thursday, December 20, 2007
10 Comments:
Wow, that is a really beautiful story! The little girl is adorable too.
That is the kind of thing that happens when people act from love. Everyone in the story was acting out of love; from the little girl who loved her dog to her mother who loved her daughter, to the person (or higher entity) who loved a little girl they had not met. It is good to be reminded, especially this time of year, and especially in our current socio-political climate, what that looks like. We are so immersed in fear and suspicion, it is easy to forget.
So thanks for reminding us CR.
As far as which candidate would engender this type of action? I would say Dennis Kucinich. If you listen to what he says, he talks a lot about the need for love and understanding, humility and kindness. I know that kind of thing isn't taken very seriously these days. And that is why these days are the way they are.
Who best to project this image, this benevolence?
One Name: Obama.
He really is a game changer, the only one in the race.
I used to think McCain but he has moved on the 'say anything' point and is now beyond redemption, the poison of power has corrupted his soul. At the same time, and as much as I don't like her HRC with her super star Husband might rekindle this image internationally even if she would be a plague domestically.
Dennis Kucinich
Ron Paul... assuming he doesn't do away with the post office. :-)
disclosure:
I voted for him in '88 and have donated to his current campaign.
I repeat, I did not get misty-eyed reading the post; it's just that I have allergies this time of year.
Seriously, what a great story. If I had to pick someone under whose leadership this would flourish, I would have to say Ron Paul or Obama, but I'd probably have to go with Ron Paul - he strikes me as a particularly decent and principled man, something that's definitely in short supply nowadays.
I lost my (canine) best friend of 14 years two years ago, and not a day goes by that I don't talk to him and his "brother" who departed seven years earlier. I know they are in heaven and hope to rejoin them someday.
How far we've fallen as a nation.
As individuals, the good is just beneath the surface where is cannot be heard.
As to who can restore us? I don't see it happening unless the nation goes through the impeachment process and the Imperialism is rolled back. Otherwise, power will continue to corrupt no matter what the intent is going in.
Among the "realistic" candidates; maybe Edwards. Clinton is the power brokers' choice. She won't change much. As for Obama, some of us suspect they put him out there mainly as a stalking horse for Clinton; to siphon off attention from Edwards' message (not very popular with the elites) and it seems to be working.
Well, Mr. Realist, yours is still the only blog I've wept while reading...*twice* now. Thanks again.
Why does it matter who the president is?
As the ersatz post office "God" said: ...I am wherever there is love.
I think we can put too much importance on the persons we elect to student council office. The winner of such popularity contests does not determine the actions of private citizens.
If we are good people, and act out of that goodness, then good things will happen. Our current Idiot-in-Chief is merely a reflection of our national dementia. And the current assemblage of candidates is also emblematic of our national psyche.
Thanks for the great post. Keep acting out of goodness.
Post a Comment
<< Home