Covid-19

GladHeart
Mar 22, 2020 at 03:39:11 PM
This may not be in time (or even appropriate) for the first wave of covid-19 but the thinking involved bares serious consideration. Although and unfortunately, it won't necessarily help underdeveloped infrastructures like those in Latin and South America, Africa or the overpopulated Indian sub-continent (*1).

Run an Imperial College London model (which altered both Boris Johnson’s and POTUS’s turn around in combating covid-19), with all present relevant factors: a model that does not (1) overwhelm the hospitals, (2) compresses the overall transmission time instead of fully lengthening it indefinitely, and yet flattens the curve to where needed, (3) continues to allow maximum survival for the most vulnerable elderly; and, as a secondary benefit, (4) allows employment and the economy to hum along on five or seven cylinders.

Right now we are all to isolate and [especially the elderly] wait for a vaccine, even though most of us will likely eventually get covid-19 and we still don't have a vaccine for the rhinovirus. The present strategy seems to be slowing the spread down by all of us isolating in place so that it basically keeps the hospitals and ventilators needed available to greatly reduce the death rate (by at least a factor of five or so it seems if the statics from initially overwhelmed Wuhan are compared to the outlying areas [and where in Italy, many of those over 65 have been forced to be left to expire on gurneys in hospital corridors]). Instead, while continuing to keep the basic criteria in place [of sustaining the curve to best meet our hospital capacity], run a model on letting the young under 40 or 45 or 50 be exposed and get it now. Those above age found should include health care workers if possible. Let the bars and beaches, schools and businesses open to those of young age. It will happen again in our lifetime and the sooner it is practicable the better. It is not a fully open 'herd immunization' if done with strict in place self quarantining of those who are older and more at risk; who would then overwhelm the health system with greatly more complications. Besides, for that portion of the older population [including me] we are already there [in quarantine] now. This approach, with the right cut off age, when instituted, would though quickly in a matter of weeks totally eliminate much of the population [the younger less vulnerable age group] from the 'R(naught)' pool right off the bat. in the beginning and too, eliminate much of the social and economic fallout that we are looking at well into the next year.

        www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-rates-by-age-south-korea
        Business Insider / Andy Kiersz Mar 11, 2020, 4:25 PM
        While South Korea reported 2,718 cases among patients under
        30 as of March 11, there were zero deaths from COVID-19 among
        those younger patients. Only one patient between the ages of
        30 and 39 had died, and only one patient in their 40s died.

 It would simply continue to fall upon the elder generations to remain ultra-vigilant, as it is now and, perhaps with the vast majority of younger people inoculated by initial allowance of exposure (including health care workers in that age group), actually less a transmission minefield at that point. It would continue to creep forward but, hopefully allow a much more sustainable response.


        Reply 22, 2020 at 03:58:49 PM
        Not terrible notions but would create a lot of resentments-
        and noxious to a ‘free’ society. Sort of saying to allow
        those who feel tougher, to get themselves “past” the pool
        of transmitters. Involves some assumptions which may very
        well be false, in this situation, so serious study is needed
        first. Wait at least a month for developing results from Asia.


GladHeart
Mar 22, 2020 at 04:24:33 PM
Thank you for your take. Yes as to the “noxious to a ‘free’ society” but I suggest we are all in lock down now and know what is happening in Italy with the complication rates the elder generations bring to the health care system by bringing it to a breaking point. I simply mean to suggest a partial self-quarantine/lockdown is better than the total one we are going into now **if** it could flatten the curve, keep our health care workers up with it, keep equipment needed (ventilators and PPE) available and lessen the R(naught) pool of spread in a sustainable manner. Controlling this pandemic is said to be like, “stopping the wind”. Let us consider and begin modeling our windbreaks and defences now. Waiting another month may be like waiting for the Persians to descend on Athens instead of confronting the threat at Marathon; or again at Thermopylae and Salamis. Athens was saved once and burned once but, both times the overall objective possible was successfully achieved. Besides, with the country coming into lockdown now and that then become the defacto state of our thought, our internal mental propaganda would easily see it as joyous and welcome relaxation of the herculean effort we had faced and normal life returning, much like spring, albeit slowly.

(*1) Mar 27, 2020
Sad to say and, with no bean counter bias or, lack of compassion, Modi may have it wrong. India's best option may be to let it [the virus] proliferate; if, the figures run would so indicate. India is, as a simple fact, shoulder to shoulder overpopulated and, much of its city and rural economy is on a day to day basis of basic necessities, day wages and, even alms. Its hospital ventilator system availability is almost a moot point with a population as it is in its extreme for such a compact, overrun land mass. Slowing it down, instead of letting it run its course, in this case, might cause far more trauma and do far more damage than letting it do what it is going to do ultimately: likely affect [probably well over] 60% of the population or more before it has run its course. In this case, as equally in the developed world, the only stat of importance in planning a tailored response; is, how many ventilators days are available in relations to the curve in order to keep up with or, move significantly the mortality rate this visus will inflict, as it is constituted, in its pandemic wont.

Poetry - A Subjective Analysis

A Subjective Non-Academic View of Poetry & Aspects of Compositioning

           http://gladheart.royalwebhosting.net/index.html
                                          * * * * *

 It is by comparisons that one would define my musings as poetry or assess its quality. Subjectively, some of it is good. Subjectively, it is, I would submit, all poetry.

 Some would argue it is not poetry in its purest or most sublime form. We all have our own styles; even the forerunners as initiators and then, the emulators of what we consider the classic styles. To me, what ultimately defines poetry's style is a soliloquy of meaningful language which acts as a music of words transferred and then imbibed, as connective tissues of thoughts. Hopefully, be they a canter, a trotting or galloping or, at times, a full charging rhythm of advancing feeling and thought; they ultimately be a soothing or stimulating flow words. Good poetry (as too prose) is to paint a picture. Poetry can more oft and more easily go deeper in its use of word interconnections by travelling, not just horizontally and sequentially linear in thought but, more gratifyingly (for both the poet and an interested reader) in deft combinations deeper into the latent unseen thoughts behind the thoughts and, where the formulating and large scale comprehending speaks to us from. This place is the place of the subsurface waters and undercurrents our oft unregulated surface chatter of thought which, in its insouciant and reflexive 'static', edies and floats upon it. This under the surface effect of poetic catalyzation, infused analysis and resultant melding, is the targeted place of poetic intensity. This deeper place, this place that is the target of highly meaningful stirring poetry, is the place behind and just below the surface of the linear and reactive, first level, 'old story', conditioned, 'go to', non-participatory processing. To wit, the places of active thought vs. reactive thought. Poetry with its form and, with a correctly provocative and evocative message, actively directs us towards and into this place of depth and formulation. Yes, poetry can be witty and whimsical, comical and simply amusing. But, and regardless, in allowing, in awareness or not, the connecting of the inflow of the word bundling of good poetic intrusion, just as one would  have turn tumblers in a lock, good poetry of evocation can, likewise, turn the libraries of our own mind without the normal and natural posturing and fear generally inherent in the filtering process of another's intrusions. Thus, through poetry's palliative nature of deeper self-evocation, there exists, if correctly done and containing a content of interest or curiosity, a self-trust found being set loose as connections of choice that are then become theirs, the readers'. Therefore, poetry as a vehicle of crafted form, can or may succeed in conveying its message if there is one.

 Poetry, in its ability to drop deeply into a receptively considering mind, through use of multi and layered word comparisons with their potential for evocative congressing of interconnections, produces more than information: I submit, it produces a resonance of rearrangement of the thought interconnections themselves. It, the mind, imbibing good poetry at its best, does not just weigh the input. It (allegorically) repositions and levels the scales of understanding themselves; and, even may too, by being steered to consider and co-incorporate different pathways and combinations thereof, in these new unitings of analysis (stirred and hence now required), take the reader beyond the existing formulated and measured mission statements of those various comparative thought libraries which preceded the poetic intercession at hand. They can, in effect, dust off and rearrange the books of thoughts and the vaulting holding them as well. More simply put (speaking of a lulling of poetic input and of good content), if the poetry simply resonates freely and without fear on a deep personal level in the mind-world of the one who is the recipient of reading or hearing, the poetry has achieved its highest goal. As a note to this concerning my poetry, as is my nature as well, and granted I do indulge occasionally in a passionate rant or travelogue of social conjunctures and conjectures, I would have the resonance of intrusion contained in my poetry be most ofen of celebration and written in an upholding of a logic of Light. Carried upon form, this attempted transfer of message and(/or) the mere raillery of pure entertainment, constitutes the simplest definition and the primary undertaking of poetry.

 Are there only statically defined boundaries of good poetic structure? To me, generally, a poem or, poetry if you will, should be visually cohesive and pleasing. The pattern of sound should then follow. From this, it rests as it should, on content. Structure can be said to be in the eye of the beholder as well as the ear. It can, at times, in its blocking, be both an art of the visual and, of punctuation. Poetry is simply part poetic oration. Winston Churchill was a master of blocking his messages of oration by this very technique. His speeches, including those of epochal and epical import and impact, were self and handwritten; next, polished, cadenced, paused and ultimitely delivered and projected using the ouvert subtlety of the visuality of this written form of structure. In my approach, it is equally, (or more so, as poetry vs. pure oration, is generally read by the subject audience) applicable to poetry as well.

 In its delivery, as for meter and rhyming; yes, pure rhyme and perfect meter can be musical, rhythmical and, melodic; but, so too can alliteration, a thoughtful mellow metering of word rifts and, word compounding composed of overlapping paired (or more) nouns or verbs in a Venn or synthesis of idea reverberations conjoined with attributively murmuring whorles of modifiers. Poetry should not be defined by throwing paint buckets at a canvas but, neither defined simply by mathematically tight and classically defined weaponry and tactics. Poetry more often, more easily and, more readily [than prose] lends itself to an ultimately connected, spiraling, of tangential, `streaming of consciousness` thought-podding and too, the expansion of ideas and aphorisms into their constituents of granularity. Again, the final objective should be to communicate to and entertain the mind as deeply as possible, by opening its receptivity through a soothing and meaningful rhythmic warmth of word flow carrying the ideas of exchange at hand.

 In further delving into presentation as a `can and should` ability; traditional rhyming has the ability, in its mantra like cadance, to provide the musical rhythm and soothing heartbeat allowing it to go deeply, as does good music even in a foreign language. As for the `may and might` component of highly structured rhyming poetry of form; it ultimately is ungratifying if its combinations of structural weight, the spinning of words, content and message, do not positively or quizzically evoke and provoke. To me, poetically put, the best of poetry, in any form, is to positively evoke, provoke and, ultimately, hopefully then, gratify and satisfy. There are more ways than laboriously constructed, classically structured, meter and rhyming to accomplish this evocative experience of positive and worthwhile thought exchange.

 Poetry, at its best, allows not just its primary purpose, good and creative communication; but also even, access to portals of creativity pertaining to structure; and too, the creation process with words themself. Poetry gratifyingly allows a certain license of freedom to take liberties with the ridged sentence structure required of prose and thus, allows the rearrangement of words beyond their more conventional placement and phrasing. This is actually highly significant. As words, concepts and, their ordering are stressed variously or differently in disparate foreign languages, poetry in its presentation of word order and the use of prepositions, can be thought of as ambidextrously multi-lingual. Gleefully too, at times with tactful deliberation, it even allows the creating and new genisising of words and their shadings; and, in venturing if successfully so, expanding the thought-matrix in which they, the foundationings themselves, had been birthed.

 At this point, I will desist and let you go on to decide how you or an academia should dissect and quantify, analyze and qualify, the framework I choose in comfort that then carries the messages and mundanities I muse upon and share.

Bhakti - A Brief Intoduction

Bhakti is a Sanskrit word which best translates down to devotion. Most effectively understood, it is the 'Path of the Heart' based on aspiration: an aspiration of love, devotion, and a surrendering to a concentration which wishes to rest in the conscious, focused attainment of Deity, Universal Oneness, Etc.. Although it is ultimately a highly 'inner' quest for, or relationship with, the focus of this Abstract-of-God-Oneness; it is, by virtue of man being a creature of language and learning, that it is found most often effectively focused and catalyzed through the 'personal' in the form of a (hopefully) gifted teacher who reflects the Reality of the Abstract attainable within, as the Oneself.

Particularly in the initial stages, bhakti is often characterized by structure and conformity, and some disciplines (tapas): bluntly put, constraint and service in the outer world, meditation for the inner world. Generally recognized as the 'Sunlit Path', it is seen as less rigid than some of the more austere paths. It is usually a path that seeks the Inner without the unilateral rejection of the outer. However, since the intensity to succeed is most often mixed with the reliance on, and appreciation of, an experienced teacher (Guru), it scares most causal observers and self-proclaimed experts of human nature.

Taking away all the circular arguments dealing with cults, free will (brain washing), etc., it can (and should be) no different than seeing that if one studies Judo, Karate, Sumo or any other martial art, one must follow the dictates of the dojo and follow the sensei. In the mental world it could be the studentship of law or medicine. It could even be compared to a military enlistment of choice where, seeking Oneness, half measures are neither productive nor ultimately tolerated. In my case, my need of feedback from the world of mental chess games and the dance of the senses in relationships of discovery, was my lack of commitment to the climb, 'where many are called but few are chosen'. Simply drawn, if you wish to sculpt your body, you better train and lift weights with a dedicated passion. Or, if you wish to hone your potential to seriously compete in the Olympics of Life, you had better bust your proverbial ass.

* * * * *

For those who were brought up under the multi denominational umbrella of Christianity, you may find the following added paragraphs of interest as well. Christians (of which I in the West was one) most often miss the profound realities contained under the thick obscuring husk of ritual indoctrination and rote practice. If one simply acknowledges the culturally translated and centuries layered gloss of male scribes, one need not even offend by passing judgment on such unnecessary attributions of a one way vaginal birth; or a final climatic cloud-ascending encore (as was the Buddha similarly embellished by those who loved him). In unarguable truth, the Christ teacher was born of woman and, as Supreme Oneness, simply reflected and trumpeted the attainment of our Birthright.

As part of this process, he struggled as we do. With the practice of austerities, he confronted his demons and desires in the desert for 40 days and 40 nights. He practiced control of his sexual energies (brahmacharya). As a man, he got pissed off enough to vent upon and mutilate a fig tree, as well as whip the temple vendors. He even doubted, momentarily, the Father of His Inner Wealth during the wrackings of his last moments upon the cross. Yet, Christ did touch the Unity of God and, in the patriarchy of language, called Highest that which translates to Father. He attained the State where He and His Father were One. He then manifested it with the actions of an unselfish life - as a rabbi who being immersed in the empyrean Light was not merely an interpreter, but rather, being at One with the Highest, was the Genesis of the words of God themselves. It was for this He was revered and followed.

As a realized and enlightened teacher, He had became one with his Highest. He exemplified and held out our divine possibility. He reaffirmed the teaching that it is written, "Ye are God." He taught that, "The Kingdom of Heaven is within." Even (of the seven churches) He taught too, "Let thy eye be single [meditating upon the sixth and/or seventh chakaras]." The deep meaning of the Christian trinity has not been totally buried in dead verbiage either. It proclaims the full equality of our inner Holy Spirit - not us as a sin separated wretch, remaining apart from an unattainable Father-and-Son looking down from their suspended heaven. A heaven construed as a spacial realm (free from earth bound misery) beyond the edges of a flat earth (an intervening purgatory and a lower hell) where (if we are obedient and good) we can finally check into only when we die and then at that, get picked up at some theologically determined second coming. Kind of like a column of marching Gumbies in search of their robes and wings.

Of equal importance is knowing He not only said He had been here before, but He would also come again. He has, many times since. Knowing this, His true resurrection, you know that Christ was not the body or the static shell that remains of his teachings. Knowing this, His true resurrection, one also can then know the reality of, "The only way to the Father is through Me." If you cannot comprehend this, then you are left to worship the hollow idol of Jesus the body. You will also find it then impossible to believe, let alone know, the Christ-Consciousness inside yourself or, others (be they your peers or God-Realized teachers). Christ in His Consciousness proclaimed too, a path of love (bhakti) and called upon us as 'children of His Father', to recognize and grow into Him, the Oneness of our Inner-Divinity.

Abortion: The real issue is ‘Consciousness’, not ‘Life’.

The underling reality is neither 'Pro-Life' nor 'Pro-Abortion'. Yet, we are constantly being defined in terms of 'Anti-Life'. The debate has been framed by the successful manipulation of those who would seek to control in the name of righteousness. It is a debate set with their words of choice. The debate has become wrapped in the same flag of understanding as those who coined the 'Clean Air Act' and 'Death Tax' successes. We in turn, reactively, have merely sanitized 'Pro-Abortion with 'Pro-Choice'; and in doing so, we will continue to face an ever ending retreat to the onslaught wrought by their choice of words - shame on us!

The issue is 'Consciousness'! Those right now in South Dakota (and throughout the country) who would write the rules of the 'new inquisition', sit eating their slaughter beef and then speak of the sanctity of life. It is truly NOT about life. Correctly seen, it is about the definition of human 'Consciousness'. It must come into a focus, no different than the parable of Emperor's clothing. It is NOT of the life, which they willing destroy hunting or slaughtering: it is our ultimately coming to defining the point at which animal consciousness has been transcended by the human 'Consciousness', that when aware, experiences life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When does the masturbatory 'right to life' in a Petri dish surpass that of a slaughter cow or chimpanzee? The argument when correctly defined, will be framed for what it is: either a religious 'fatwah to be'; or a common sense, private, social right to choice based on the freedom from that narrowly defined, religious interference and intolerance.

There will be assaults with unfounded postulates of eugenics and playing god, but they need go no further than the leaps to conclusions contained in the present debate, or for that matter, the political-religious hypocrisy of false life played out in the Terri Schiavo fiasco. Regardless, until the debate is redefined correctly, we can not expect to win the scurrying public's understanding.

Please take these thoughts, without any attribution, as our common understanding to the extent you see fit. Please, from your vantage, carry them forward for us all.

The Demonizing of Liberal - Election 2004

Subject: Election 2004 - An Alternate Analysis & Resultant Democratic Party Strategy

You may analyze your exit polls, agonize the issues, debate the sudden predominance of catchall 'values', and you will likely be left with little or nothing of substance. It is behind these reflections that one must look much deeper into the shadows. It is imperative we grasp, and then loosen; the subconscious verbal chains which have parted us from the vote of many of the electorate to the ‘Center of Right’. If we do not address this deeper issue of emotional enslavement, we are doomed to fail the next election.

We all clearly know Election 2004 allowed the Republicans to be falsely perceived as the Centrists, regardless of their Rightwing agenda. They succeeded because, for Republicans, politics has become a war of words, not just the issues. For many a voter, it had ultimately become just a gut feeling at the poll. If only 1% of the voters, let alone 5%, 10%, or 15%, had been able to overcome the indefensible-Right’s insidious propaganda of words, it would not be this false “mandate” of the righteous-Right. The Democrats fought this election on the tradition of ideals and issues. The Republicans fought this election on ideals, issues, and ‘definitions’.

I’ve taken my exit polls with many of my kind and well meaning, “Gotta do right by God and Country” neighbors. Their aversion to the Democrats is not in the muddy analysis of ‘values’ themselves. Their aversion is not to be found in sharply reasoned issues (if it were issues, the Democrats should have won overwhelmingly ). Many of my neighbors voted against the future of the country, “ ‘cause they feel themselves to be [in reality], just good middle of the road Americans; and couldn’t vote for Kerry”. My neighbors of the Center professed not deeply enunciated feelings with issues domestic and foreign: simply a ‘feeling’. It was, a gut instinct transmitted to them by the words and verbiage of a campaign which was the culmination of the overall, long term Republican strategy.

Strategist Rove has made Machiavelli look like a novice. Through Rove we have his creation, God’s chosen ‘Prince of the righteous-Right’, speaking for the many. Reagan and Clinton took the White House because they captured the gut and mind of Middle America. During these last two elections, Karl Rove has steadily usurped the middle through a deliberate use of both tactics based on words, and the subtlety of words themselves.

One of the greatest men of ideas in the 20th Century, the (dare we say it) French philosopher Jacque Ellul has masterfully pointed out that propaganda is not to be trivialized as just the extreme expression of outright lies (which the Republicans did not hesitate to use), but rather more powerfully, an art of taking single ‘facts’ or incidents and, to the exclusion of all else, repeating them over and over and over and over. Goebbels mastered this in the ‘30s through the advent of radio. The results preserved in those black and white newsreels of adoring crowds hailing extremism are being created today with the same methods. Rush Limbaugh, Clear Channel, Falwell (et. al.), and (to a slightly lesser extent) Fox having been beating this drum of simplistic, pointed repetition for a decade.


Rove-Republicans have colored red basic gut feelings with the crucifixion and resurrection of words; most often avoiding content or social repercussion. ‘The Death Tax’, ‘Clear Skies Initiative’, ‘Unborn Victims of Violence Act’, ‘strict constructionists’, ‘family values’, ‘American values’, ‘tax and spend’, ‘flip flop’, and Liberal, Liberal, Liberal. These words are the art of a war of terror waged within the electorate’s synaptic responses. Did the London Daily Mirror’s reaction to Bush’s re-election have it right when they said, “How can 59,054,087 people be so DUMB?” Let’s just say that after all the ‘bread and circus’ of, “Well, I got my tax cut!” was done, when the propaganda of misinformation was over with, and the ‘salt of the earth’ Msr. America who just wanted to do the right thing (all-the-while keeping most of their pay check) had finished voting; the wrong party for the country was elected.

As words go, with the rise of McCarthy, the word ‘Socialist’ died a permanent death in America. Though America recovered from McCarthy’s discredited hysteria; neither did the changed Pledge of Allegiance, nor the allowance of a word for a left leaning, socially conscious anti-communism. Much of the rest of the world, not bathed in this muriatic expunging, still retains this word in its historical un-Americanized context. In the same way, and through the recent activities of the radical-Right, we must recognize and must wisely accede to the mental impressions that have poisoned the word Liberal. Liberal is a word no longer visualized in the Center. Although Liberal is an inherently noble word with a noble history, words, in themselves are not worth fighting for. Together, Liberals and Conservatives felled the Berlin wall. However, when the wall fell there was no longer a Pinko or Commie boggy man to rail and rally against. Rove and his followers have calculatedly over and over and over, propagandized Liberal to equal Left, Left equal Liberal, Liberal, Left, Liberal, Left. With the fall of Communism there is nothing to the Left of Liberal. They have steadfastly pushed Liberal into the chasm vacated by Communism. They have superimposed Liberal as a gut feeling on that portion of the electorate who think mainly in terms of the most basic ‘values’ of , “Who is right and who is wrong.” The rabid-Right just says, “We’re right and you’re wrong.”. They repeat it over and over. That unfortunately is their strength. The thoughtful to the ‘Center of Right’, are unprepared and swept away in maintaining the truth that there are, “Many points of view to consider.” This jagged, one sided, ‘Branding of the Opposition’: this is where the election was lost and this is our future to avoid as Democratic Americans!

John Kerry was interviewed and answered a pointed question on whether or not he was a Liberal. He basically replied, “On some matters I can be considered a Liberal and on others I am a Conservative such as /blah.../.” With that answer, he had just put one arm in the meat grinder. He was half off center: that was the impression left in the noble gut of many of the electorate. We lose nothing by amputating words if we don’t lose our principles and ideals in doing so. Reagan would just have said, “Well there you go again.” Kerry probably should have said, “Liberal?? That is merely a word for label mongers. My actions will be to /uplift/ the great Center of this nation and /safeguard/ it from the terror with out, while /protecting/ Americans of all sides from the /hypocracy/ within /blah.../.”

The ultimate points are these. Know why we have lost; and what verbal capital we have had corrupted. Know where we will be hit next and how. The extreme-Right is not far from turning the word Democrat itself to mean, less than the ‘moderate-Center’ of this nation. We must with fairness, accuracy, and conciseness, know the power intrinsic in the repetition of the simplest messages of all: singular words and phrases. We must guard the remaining words we hold dear and covet those that allow Middle America to naturally embrace the egalitarian values which they already hold. We must be better at communicating ultimate impressions than the extreme-Right.

There remains a just, ‘Thin Red Line of 44’ preventing the next 30 years of Supreme Court darkness. The Democrat’s duty is now to protect this Nation's future against that darkness, not just a thinking of the next election and advancing to retake the Center. The Supreme Court battle must be fought wisely with the deep understanding of perception. Handled correctly it may start to unravel the emperor’s clothing. Simplifying reality, it would seem best to take the high and defensible ground where Democrats are not allowed to be inevitably assaulted (and propagandized) as ‘obstructionists’. ‘Republic’ is not their word! Instead, wrapped in the cloak of ‘upholders of the Republic’, we will have raised proudly, clear, and visible our flag: “(its not a mandate, its 49%/51% and coninue the fight!” In rolling back the darkness looming over this land, ‘Democrats of the Republic’ must/should accomplish the preservation, unification, and cleansing of the Center; astride the word ‘Republic’ itself.

Focusing on saving our Supreme Court is the sacred endeavor facing this nation. This is a simple agenda to declare before the American people. It is one which will turn upon the ideals of Constitution of this Republic. Correctly done we may come know the Bill of Rights to be more the just the Second Amendment. We can not stand back and wait for baby Bush to hang himself with his fiscal, moral and foreign irresponsibility. We can not wait for the depletion of oil to make an energy policy politically sexy. The key would seem to be defining the Supreme Court issues with intense forethought. The issue can not wait until it is dropped in our lap framed as Liberals vs. their core of American values. If we wait, the Republicans will have been allowed to frame the issues and battle cry in their terms. Democrats would only be seen represented as a pro-abortion, obstructionist minority of Congress.

Inevitably, and here, the extreme-Right must be confronted. The grass roots evangelical-Right has co-opted the Republican Party. Special interests may continue to be the head, but the semi-saved Savonarolas-of –the-Right are the cold clear beating heart of the Republican Party. There seems no way to avoid confronting them and challenging them. A klan of intolerance should not speak for the Nation. When unmasked to expose the uncompromising-extreme-of –the-radical-Right, few evangelical votes will have been gained or lost by relegating unto them alone the words, “Republican Party”. If done carefully and powerfully it will begin to undo Rove’s mastery of the previous two elections. It must be an honest cleaving of the anti-Separation of Church State activists from their usurpation of the moderate and Christian Center. In necessarily focusing on the Supreme Court and the wide platform of values it provides, we may find it to be the best and most immediate means to begin resurrecting the Democratic fortunes in the eyes of Middle America. If not, God bless America for we will surely need it.
Addendum

Furthering the theme of sacrificing and defining specific words; along with dealing with some of the major issues, I would, as an extemporaneous rough draft addendum, offer the following:

Gay Marriage
- GIVE the Righteous and the Moderates their ‘word’. Even if it becomes an issue in the Senate, give them their blanket of ‘Marriage’. On this issue alone, there were enough votes lost over ‘just a word’ to have turned the election. What a grand gesture of common sense, compromise and Centrism to offer up this sacrificial, present day ball and chain of a word!

- I offer four good reasons why principle is not at stake with reason. First it is only a word rightly defined by its present social usage. Secondly, it may frustrate, but change the party affiliation of few gay or lay activists. Thirdly, in ceding the Center and Righteous back their perceivedly stolen ‘word’, it can be done with the inclusion of a quid pro quo Bill of Civil Equality, denying little or nothing to committed couples. When all is said and done, this will actually be a major step forward for civil rights based on personhood; and, it will found to be in tune with a pacified Center. What a step forward for Party strength and National unity, all-the-while filling in the fissures rent clear across the Center in accordance with the Rove plan. What a beautiful allowance for the delightful, and at times necessary, nuances of the English language. It is, and should be, ‘usage’ which makes the cleanest change of definition. On this point, we have been equally trapped by ourselves in concert with Rove. Never again.

Pro-Choice
- The Right-to-Chose is divisive by the nature and passion of the arguments involved. It is too bad RU-47 couldn’t moot the invasive-surety of those who would relegate Woman’s return to the status of property. An emotional victory will not be decisive based on the inalienable rights of the impregnee alone. This argument should be treated with assumptive constitutional closure. The rhetoric and debate should be turned to the real issue of defining (human) ‘Consciousness’; not its present context of ‘Life’. We have been fighting a losing battle desanctifying the definition of life as a word in the minds of the middle America. Cows have life; people are supposedly created with Consciousness. While eating their steak and eggs, intrusionists talk of life and end up instead, dictating the boundaries of Consciousness enforced with the draconian invasion of our civil rights.

- This larger and deeper issue of an individual’s God given right to chose what is right for them and their family in an inclusive society, free from Court and Government intrusion, must predominate any Republican simplification based on the mantra of, “pro-Life”. One can acknowledge the pro-life contingent their opinion and activism, but it must repeatedly be put in the correct context of that not dictated by some ‘strongly-opinioned-Constructionists’. Intrusionism should not be allowed to be reduced to a single issue upon which a Party’s morals are calculatedly smeared, on which Congress should be bullied, or on which Governments should rise and fall.

- Rove will again target those proponents in the Center to re-inculcated this issue as a moral wedge. Beyond the organized moralizing of the pre and post-zygote-absolutists, this issue has often been used to substitute a gut negative association overshadowing the broader Democratic platform. Acknowledge this as a religious issue! Rightly, this issue should be defused and relegated to the arena of an acceptable difference of opinion based on the definition of ‘Consciousness’. It is a religious issue which should not be opinioned into the constitution or the courts of the Republic; let alone enforced on the liberties of the free.

Bush’s Shame: Iraq
- Support our troops until we can bring them home. Hammer home the real truth of this war as the personal choice of a man with no foreign policy experience or vision. His vision is based on a, “calling by God” to run for President. His vision is based on, “planting American values” by the crusade of “right” and force of arms. Iraq is a personal undertaking which Bush coveted long before 9/11. I don’t think the majority of ‘My Country right or wrong.’ would accept the Christian or correct course of action which might be an apology to the world. However, I do think the unfolding reality of our urban Viet Nam will show, when we do exit an inflamed Iraq with the Arab world cheering and jeering, that we didn’t have an al Qaeda problem when we went in, but we sure as hell did when we left ‘honorably’ with our dead, wounded, and deficit.

Tax and Spend (equally the hardest given the general aversion to math)
- [Here, we should legitimately usurp or co-inhabit the ‘word’ Conservative.] This will be a will be a pay as we go government in a true bi-partisan fashion with fiscal conservatives of all parties - we are the party of fiscal responsibility. First cut while leaving only that which the American people demand of their government like < ‘abc’>). Stick to the truth that if we concentrate on only the service needed and then, that only those taxes needed to pay for it will be levied; then we get back to putting the horse before the cart. Avoid the talk of taxes: focus on bi-partisan necessities, stewardship, reality and responsibility.

- We are NOT the Party of, “Lie and spend” / “Deficit and spend” / “Spend today, nobody pays” / “Fiscal irresponsibility” / … When differences are stark, it is often wise to be defined rather by what one is not. It is the opposite of trying to be all things to everyone. It also offers less of a target for the water torture of labels such as the calculated art of “flip flop” and ‘Liberal’. As we have been shown, this pre-emptive labeling means that every time any opposition must define themselves, it is through a chosen lens of predefinition.

Prayer and Creationism in our schools
- Keep God out of the cockpits of 747s and, in the name of Separation of Church and State, for the same reasons, keep Her out of our schools. We need not the appointments of , ‘intrusionist’, ‘invasivist’, ‘anti-seperationist’, ‘re-constructist’, and ‘counter-constitutionalists’. We may be one Nation under God, but if God is Unity, it still doesn’t make someone else’s God your God.

Methodology
- At present the Republicans own much of the Center by virtue of words. In the light of equal treatment, they must be removed from this contrived and unrealistic advantage. It must necessarily include the repetition and intensity learned from the Republican’s own game plan: (where justified) Right equal extreme-Right, extreme-Right equals Right, Right, righteous-Right, Right, far-Rightwing. This is unfortunately, a shedding of light on the evangelical-Right more so than the self–interest of favored corporate interests. It must need not be an attack on the value of God. It must be the shedding of light on an extreme Right who thinks their God is your God and that America is Judeo-Christian Nation making any separation of Church and State the abominated reasoning of ACLU radicals. It is a mater of fact affirmation of the Separation of Church and State. It is a political repudiation of a Right who thinks that the Scopes trial was a mistake and who claims Bush’s 51% is a carte blanche mandate from God.

- It would be better we are legitimately seen as the conciliatory and true bi-partisans who can be generally seen to have, “worked with (rubber stamped since there is little choice anyway) the majority of our President’s initiatives; but filibustered only on extreme judges.” Not only will the fight for the Courts be the right thing to do but, it can be used to selectively underline the ideals the Democratic Party stands for. It can be justified starting tomorrow by pre-emptive volleys of being reasonable in that we have approved ‘x’% of judges which Bush has put forth yet under Clinton they approved, ‘y%’ of judges. “Who’s fooling who in the name of the American People?” “Issues, you want issues? They are the issues at the foundation of the Republic: they are the issues of Constitution of the United States of America!”

- There must be a strong counter-offensive based on trivializing and refuting Republican attempts at negative labels. There must be an honest and wisely selective focus on a few of the stark difference of position. The Republicans may talk the talk with many issues of the middle class. We should therefore identify with their slogans but expose the walk. When found, duplicity and selected error (for god’s sake lets not go after flu shots and the Saudi royal family) must be framed and focused upon in the same way. Legislating is certainly not on the horizon for at least the next two years. However, using a verbal pen encompassing the wit of sarcasm, the pointed darts of humor, and the optimistic certainty of purpose, our minority position must come to be seen as the voice of reason for American family and Constitutional values.

The rest I would leave for those paid to be more familiar with the practicality of issues and the broader realities of vision.

GladHeart - Rivers of Mind & Heart

Musings of Mind & Heart - http://gladheart.royalwebhosting.net/