April 5, 2010
– From “Personal Privilege”, by Todd Essary –
What about the “big” “moral” questions? And, at this point in time, even before we can ask those questions, can we even agree or decide what qualifies as big, or moral? I don’t believe “we” can, because we are too confused and angry and disillusioned to agree on any such matters.
And despite (or in addition to) all of that, we’re too caught-up in finger-pointing mode to be able to look beyond problem or blame-oriented thinking. And, further beyond (and/or beneath) that problem/blame-orientation, we’re collectively in denial. Consider the United States of America as one entity. If we were one “person”, how would you honestly assess our mental health? How “stable” would you (honestly) say this person called “USA” is?
Personally, details don’t mean much to me. Details are day-to-day things. I’ll leave the details to the pundits and the speculators. Details sell advertising for the 24-hour news cycles, and give the talking heads something to talk about. Personally, I prefer a combination of big picture perspective mixed-in with fundamental truths. That’s my personal recipe, in two equal parts: 1.) all-encompassing point-of-view; plus 2. ) unbiased realism. Cooking directions: stir together, while simmering thoughtfully, into one big pot of “progress-oriented stew”.
So I’m going to just go ahead and “suggest” what the big, moral questions are. But, the truth of the matter is that I’m being delicate to say I’m suggesting anything about such questions. You can take them as suggestions, though, if it makes them more palatable to you. After all, anything anyone says is ultimately an “opinion”, isn’t it? Especially in the United States of America.
My college football coach had a saying about opinions: [entire post]
Tags: action, big picture, capital, denial, mental health, moral, natural resources, opinion, planet, reality, truth, united states of america, vision, write your own blog
Posted in All, Essary | No Comments »
January 27, 2010
– From “Personal Privilege”, by Todd Essary –
I was watching an episode of “The West Wing” a couple of days ago. Martin Sheen’s character, President Josiah “Jed” Bartlet, was a few weeks away from delivering his State of the Union address. He had just recently been censured by Congress, as well. So he was highly motivated to use his upcoming speech as a vehicle for improving his standing in the eyes of the American people.
During a dinner with doctor friends of his wife, it happened that President Bartlet became informed of what was an actual possibility for curing cancer, perhaps within the next decade. At that point, although it was already fairly late in the evening, Bartlet called-in his Staff and announced his plan to weave the promise of curing cancer into his State of The Union speech (a la JFK’s promise to “put a man on the moon”). And Bartlet told his Staff to start working-out the details — writing the words, securing the documentation, etc. — right away.
Ultimately, everyone involved — all the Staff, as well as Bartlet, himself — knew this promise to cure cancer neither could, nor would, find its way into the President’s address. But none of the Staff expressed any resistance to the President’s initiative. And they all went to work, late that night, on something they knew was ultimately not going to happen.
Not only did they go to work, but they went to work in earnest — as if it actually were going to happen. In particular, Rob Lowe’s character, Sam Seaborn (Deputy Communications Director, and one of Bartlet’s two world-class speechwriters), applied all of his skill and thoughtfulness, completely, over the next few hours. The result of Seaborn’s effort was the composition of a stunningly eloquent and powerful piece about the promise of curing cancer. [entire post]
Posted in All, Essary | No Comments »
