| i'm not in india anymore and i haven't been for some many months now. i miss it. where is everyone else now? i also heard back from berkeley--no dice. it's too bad that they are missing out on such a talented and dedicated scholar. ;) i've been listening to a lot of mlk speeches at work lately. he was such a fascinating and intelligent man. obviously mr. obama is a bit reminiscent of mr. king in a less ballsy way. their similarities have made me wonder if mlk would have a) been able to become president even in 2008 or b) been a good president. as far as a is concerned, mlk would be about 80 and therefore entirely too close to death for people to support him in any campaign. patallegri seems to think that the presidential election really is not going to change people's daily lives in any real way whereas mlk's work had a real and obvious impact on society in real, physical ways. i tend to agree. which makes me think that perhaps people want change, but they do not want to change. even though obama claims "we are the ones we've been waiting for," his message is still comfortable for people--he's not asking anything of them except for a vote. mlk thought it most sinful to go to work instead of march on washington, to show any aggression in the face of violence, to support the movement with words and not follow those words to the gallows. but just because some people are better at affecting change, does not mean those people would make a better president. the president is primarily a representation of the nation. if the people want superficial, comfortable change in an attractive, charismatic package, then obama's their guy. but then i wonder if that means that those who actually want to change society should steer clear of holding political office? |
| |
