I look at some of the early posts on this blog, and I'm slightly (but not entirely) appalled. There was a heck of a lot of propaganda back then, and the content of this blog was, I think, more necessarily political then than it is now. Back then there was still a sort of koan going on in my head, which was basically, "How political does a Buddhist get?" It's a complementary question to "Why hasn't the revolution come?"
I'm still much more political in my speech and writing than, say, Brad Warner and others who wish to be "centric" but who don't get that revolution both outside and inside isn't always a bad thing, just as long as nobody gets hurt, and property becomes more equitably distributed, and people that labor aren't ripped off while those that cannot work are cared for by society.
I had read a bit more about these things perhaps than others.
But in the intervening time many things have happened. Today the New York Times sort of trumpets Willard "Mitt" Romney's "victory by 8 votes" in the Iowa caucuses, and my first thought was, "Ya think they don't steal elections now in America, righties?" My second thought was "Why am I reading this?" I mean, Matt Taibbi nailed this thing before it happened. Our "elections" are pretty much as meaningless as those of regimes which are decried in the American mainstream media. (There was a curious scene in the Iowa caucus results being broadcast on CNN, in which a military Ron Paul supporter started saying something about how Israel can defend itself...until "technical difficulties" "disrupted the audio feed" or something. I'm sure it was a coincidence.)
Nowadays, though I think "revolution" will take care of itself; I think "the personal is the political" is best expressed - as well as it can be with politically controlled media - with a movie like "Ip Man."
The personal is still the political. It's largely a mind thing first and foremost. Anyway, sitting...