THE STATE OF THE "STATE"
In politics a person can so play the game in ways which quickly reveal him or her as a real "heel". Actually, the term in common use is one which calls the participants in illegal activity within the political framework. Whatever terms might be used to tag such off-limits activity it , far from being far too often, boils down to semantics within our language. Should I , for example, listen with a mind-set which tells me he is speaking resolutely or stubbornly? Each could be sincere; each could be honest and yet, I also know they could be the exact opposite!
I was thinking such thoughts just last night as I watched the President of the United States of America deliver his annual "State of The Union" message. Certainly, the head of the "greatest nation on Earth"is a august personality; one steeped in tradition and knowledge of what it takes to be a true leader of a nation. But, I realize, even as I watch him move about and gesture and as I listen to his words, that he, too, has his critics, his downright enemies, in truth, those who would gladly see him "done in" - which is about as final as we can get.
Yet, the man speaking gave me a good feeling that I was listening to a real person - a man who is resolute in the beliefs he holds; a man who was standing there before us all - friend and foe alike - and sets forth, in plain, honest language, the concepts he favors and doing so without seeming to be stubborn or demanding of any of us.
The idea of doing such a speech so closely upon the heels of having been ire-elected has been faulted by critics of the system. I rather like it. There is an opportunity to reassert ones intention to do even better than they might claim to have done in the past - a new, more vibrant and active sense of resolve and depth of concerns. I kept hearing a man who planned to continued to do as he had been doing but now with a renewed and strengthen assurance that it was the path in which to take ten our nation at this time. There is a confessional quality about the "State of the Union" more often said to be a "message" - something close and more personal than an "address", "speech" or "report". It expresses a stronger resolve and deeper concerns for active issues.
One portion of the evening's current telecast schedule of the event could well be eliminated - the opposition party's pathetic, inept, childish "rebuttal" - so called - which demeans the very group it was, apparently, intended to exalt. The lowly party member assigned to "do the rebuttal" is about the only time, he or she, is ever pictured as being "live" on national TV. There is a possible use for it!
Who knows? It could be the next successful "realities" format for prime time TV!
A.L.M. February 3, 2005 [c509wds]
THE STATE OF THE "STATE"
In politics a person can so play the game in ways which quickly reveal him or her as a real "heel". Actually, the term in common use is one which calls the participants in illegal activity within the political framework. Whatever terms might be used to tag such off-limits activity it , far from being far too often, boils down to semantics within our language. Should I , for example, listen with a mind-set which tells me he is speaking resolutely or stubbornly? Each could be sincere; each could be honest and yet, I also know they could be the exact opposite!
I was thinking such thoughts just last night as I watched the President of the United States of America deliver his annual "State of The Union" message. Certainly, the head of the "greatest nation on Earth"is a august personality; one steeped in tradition and knowledge of what it takes to be a true leader of a nation. But, I realize, even as I watch him move about and gesture and as I listen to his words, that he, too, has his critics, his downright enemies, in truth, those who would gladly see him "done in" - which is about as final as we can get.
Yet, the man speaking gave me a good feeling that I was listening to a real person - a man who is resolute in the beliefs he holds; a man who was standing there before us all - friend and foe alike - and sets forth, in plain, honest language, the concepts he favors and doing so without seeming to be stubborn or demanding of any of us.
The idea of doing such a speech so closely upon the heels of having been ire-elected has been faulted by critics of the system. I rather like it. There is an opportunity to reassert ones intention to do even better than they might claim to have done in the past - a new, more vibrant and active sense of resolve and depth of concerns. I kept hearing a man who planned to continued to do as he had been doing but now with a renewed and strengthen assurance that it was the path in which to take ten our nation at this time. There is a confessional quality about the "State of the Union" more often said to be a "message" - something close and more personal than an "address", "speech" or "report". It expresses a stronger resolve and deeper concerns for active issues.
One portion of the evening's current telecast schedule of the event could well be eliminated - the opposition party's pathetic, inept, childish "rebuttal" - so called - which demeans the very group it was, apparently, intended to exalt. The lowly party member assigned to "do the rebuttal" is about the only time, he or she, is ever pictured as being "live" on national TV. There is a possible use for it!
Who knows? It could be the next successful "realities" format for prime time TV!
A.L.M. February 3, 2005 [c509wds]
resolutely.
