Good points.I realize where you're going with this - you believe that the measure of a person's strength is in their ability to act, to change the world around them.
Well, yeah. Or, rather, that a person's power is in such. That's part of my philosophy, as it continues to develop. I think I've mentioned it before
In this case, though, I'm measuring actions, not people. Your examples were perfect; in fact, you've demonstrated much more commitment to your chosen causes than I have. I'm not in any position to criticize your actions, nor was I able to think of anything that could be done by you, or me, or anyone else I know personally, about the incident in New York.
What I am
doing is standing back and saying, "Well, this doesn't work." Everything that's been done so far hasn't been enough.So what's the appropriate response here, in your opinion?
Honestly, I don't know. I thought about that for a long time before and after replying. I'm not smart enough to come up with the right solution to this one.What am I not doing that you feel I should be?
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply you should do anything. Rather, I was looking at your response, and at the original article writer's response, and saying that getting worked up about it isn't going to accomplish anything. I realize that's a coldly, unemotionally, rational reaction, and I'm not in any way saying that I wished you hadn't posted it, or that I hadn't read it.
Actually, on second thought, you know what it is?
I'm sick of the drama
. I see political activists on both sides of any issue -- tree sitters, bloggers, politicians, journalists -- all expending incalculable amounts of energy towards their causes, and so much of it is totally ineffective. People are spewing emotion everywhere, most of it negative, and it isn't getting us very far.
I may not know yet how to be a more effective force for change, but at least I'll save my energy until I am.