Monday, January 31, 2005

Connolly trips

Re: In the Northwest: If Democratic Party lurches left, it may fare worse
(Seattle Times, January 31, 2005)

I appreciate Mr. Connelly's experience in politics, but I really have the impression that he is missing what is happening. George Bush won the election with 62 Million votes. John Kerry won with 59 million votes. #3 was Barbara Boxer, with 6.96 Million Votes.

The problem is that too many people see things on a single axis, Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative. They see a majority bump in the middle of the spectrum and spend all their time and effort trying to push the party line over in the direction of their opposition to try and get that extra single percentage point that will put them over the top. The Republicans have mastered that art. The Democratic Party has never been good at it, and it was only the advent of the Democratic Leadership Council that demanded that the Party focus all of it's energy trying to make that push for the 'center'. They are operating under an illusion, and will continue to lose until we break that illusion and refocus on what is really important.

The Progressive Movement was revived by Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich in 2003. But we couldn't gain the clout within the Democratic Party in time to get the nomination. But what we have done is recognized what their illusion is and we're working on trying to break it. The Democratic Party is not the source of the power any more than the Republican Party is the power on the other side. The Parties may think that they are the center of the universe. There are a large number of people on the Conservative side who laugh at that notion. The Republican Party is a tool of a much bigger coalition. It's time the opposition to the Conservatives came to understand who we are and what we have to do. It's our turn.

There are two major times in history that show us the way. 1932 and 1994. We must study the lessons of both. We need a Roosevelt, and we need a Gingrich. Any takers?

Thursday, January 27, 2005

A comment on choice

From a religious perspective, I can understand the position that many people of faith take. The stance that I have heard is that any and all life is sacred, and must be protected at all costs. I happen to disagree. Before the advent of modern medical procedures like the C-section, premature births, and hospital emergency rooms, the birth of a child was a wonderous and terrifying time for the mother to be, the immediate family, and their surrounding community. Midwives worked hard and did their best to make sure the birth went smoothly and without too much complication. These wise women learned from their elders and their own experience the signs of distress and what it was possible to do to remedy bad situations. And without the magic of of X-rays, ultrasounds and thousand page medical journals, they brought into the world several thousand generations. But there were many mothers who died in childbirth, or had children that were stilborn. These were accepted as part of life, and the mother and child during the entire event was said to be 'in Gods hands'. It was done with great respect and reverence to the randomness of life. We seem to have taken much of that randomness out of the picture, and we struggle to bring into the world children who would not have survived even 50 years ago. I do believe that the children who were not born over all those thousands of years had souls. But I don't believe that they were lost. I believe that they were taken 'by Gods hands' and given another chance at life at a later time. God does not waste, and according to everything that I have learned about the teachings of Jesus and the Prophets before him, their fondest wish was that we all had the chance to live up to our potential, striving for what is best in life. I don't believe that they want us to simply live for the sake of life.

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

Power the future

Power the future:

"Monday, January 10, 2005

Power the future


We can't keep wasting energy. Across the political spectrum, Americans know that financial, environmental and even national security reasons dictate the need to be smarter about the energy choices we make.

But, even amid rising energy prices, we've stayed stuck in wasteful patterns for decades. An independent, bipartisan group of energy experts last month handed the country a promising blueprint of ideas on reducing foreign-oil dependence, addressing global warming and promoting a wider variety of energy sources.

The National Commission on Energy Policy's report has something for everyone to like and hate. It calls for strong action against greenhouse gases, which will drive many conservatives wild, and development of demonstration projects with advanced nuclear power plants, a taboo on the left.

The report should offer opportunities for those with creative energy ideas like U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., to push discussion forward. Inslee just joined the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The Bush administration took office with Vice President Dick Cheney trying to create a national energy policy. The effort was tainted from the start by Cheney's secrecy and special-interest favoritism.

The administration and the country have a fresh chance on energy policy. The report should energize discussions that go beyond arguing to acting on the kinds of changes we all sense are needed.

On the Net:"


A fool is my shepherd. I shall not think. He maketh me to bog down in a quagmire. He leadeth me beside dirty waters. He destroyeth my ozone. He leadeth me down paths to the extreme right, for his lobbyists' sake.

Yea, though I walk through relatively safe streets, I do fear evil (the threat level is orange), for thou hast scared me. My assault rifle comforteth me. Thou anointest my car with oil. My deficit runneth over. Thou preparest my table with fast food in the presence of my television. Surely paranoia and resentment will follow me all the days of my life. And I will dwell in this Empire of Fools till I die, uninsured.

--Lawrence Swan, Letters, The Nation

Monday, January 03, 2005

HeraldNet: Everett council races begin

HeraldNet: Everett council races begin: "Everett council races begin
At least three incumbents say they'll run again, and two other possible candidates emerge."

Saturday, January 01, 2005

Zeus and Apollo

Z: So, what's the latest update?

A: She seems to be degenerating at an accelerating place. The cancer is continuing to find new places to expand, and the growths are consuming all of the resources that they can reach.

Z: What have we tried?

A: The natural antibodies have a limited effect, but the cells change and adapt just as quickly by isolating the antibodies in specific regions of the body to prevent them from spreading and having more of an effect. It's disturbing to watch, although I will admit it's fascinating.

So, we will need to continue to resort to drastic measures. We do have Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy working on the problem, but we may need to step up the dosage. The cells are generating enough waste material that it may be unnecessary to add anything external to the mix. However, I think an increase in radiation may be necessary. I'm afraid She might go into seizure sometime soon.

Z: Is there anything that we can do with the cells themselves to change the outcome?

A: We have been trying, but that is turning out to be more complicated than we thought. It's almost like they are outside the influence of the rest of the body. Maybe we need to select a small number of them and reconnect them to the overall patterns. Then we would have to support the growth of these cells and help to spread them around the entire body.

Z: That idea sounds like it has promise. How should we proceed?

A: Certain changes in the way cells interact with their environment would be encouraged. They can be modified to produce less waste, which would result in faster growth of these cells. The problem is that other cells may try to take advantage of their success.

Z: What if we made these changes in one of the clusters of cells that do the most damage? Then the cells would have more resources in the first place, and their growth might have more of an impact.

A: That might take a while, but I agree that it is worth trying. Let's try both. We can help cells in both situations. If we don’t do something soon, the entire body might start to fail. Let's start here…

The cancer is us. Pollution is the chemotherapy. Global warming is the radiation.
We have a chance to make a difference. Get active. Stay active. Vote.