Greensboro

William here again.

I was just looking at a package I got recently, and one side of the box says "God Bless America", which got me thinking. We bless a lot of things, but mainly people and people-oriented things. We bless strangers when they sneeze, and meals just before we eat them. We bless pets, and we bless countries. We bless ships before they launch, and even bless bicycles. But what interests me is all the things we *don't* bless.

Why don't we say "bless this rock"? You might respond, "Sure, bless that rock, if you're going to use it to build a bridge." So how is the rock different when it's in a bridge from when it's lying on the side of the road? It's because it's now used to make something that helps people. Once it's in the bridge, it contributes to society. It eases our travels, and protects us from falling into a gorge or river.

But why don't we bless the rock when it's lying on the side of the road? Why don't we bless the tree in the forest, or the glacier in Alaska? Why don't we bless the moon, or Mars or Venus, or the comets in the sky? Apparently, because they're somehow not important to us, because they don't affect our everyday lives. But, isn't that selfish?

It seems to me that blessing is a selfish act, or at least a self-oriented one. We only bless people or things because they can help us. If it can't help us, it's not bless-worthy. Forget about the rock in the road, or the tree in the forest; they won't help me, so I'm not blessing them. We probably don't consciously think that, but there must be an undercurrent of selfishness that makes us choose what to bless and what to ignore.

Why don't we bless the Sun or the Earth? In fact, we should probably be blessing the Sun every day. If the Sun wasn't there, we'd all freeze and die. When it shines on us, it keeps us warm, it makes the crops grow, and makes the plants make oxygen, which us animals need to breathe. The Earth, similarly, helps us live, by holding us down, by preventing the atmosphere from floating away (whose ozone protects us from too much sunlight), by keeping the oceans where they are, and helping the water flow through the ecosystem.

The Buddhists say everything is connected, so even the objects which you think have no affect on your life, *are* connected to your life--you just can't see it. So maybe, you should just say "God bless everything" or "God bless the universe".

Well, that was more preachy than I usually get. If you have anything to say about this, or would like to talk about the politics of blessing, or Obama's news conference this past Tuesday, or Newt Gingrich's beef with Notre Dame, or other less political things, like the upcoming Star Trek movie, then join me at the Green Bean tonight at 7:30 pm, where imports are half-price, but domestics are full price. (I think that was one of the Republicans' major complaints in the 2008 election.) See you soon!

-Wlliam Moates
DL Local Co-chair

So, Bush 43 goes to Canada to give a speech, and a few hundred protesters show up. Why protest him now? Bush is no longer president, and is no longer a spokesman for the Republican Party. The Bush administration is history; it no longer exists as a political entity. How can protesting a defunct leader be effective?

I can respect protests of existing policies or existing companies or existing governments, because doing so shines the light on the problems they contribute to. I expect such action. Protests in these cases can lead to governmental policies being reversed, the companies ending their bad policies, or the governments changing from within. When people marched for civil rights in the 1950's and 1960's, they were marching for an end to Jim Crow laws, and the practices which supported such "laws". We made discrimination illegal, and we enforce this law, and those protests no longer happen.

Still, people want to take the time to rally where Bush is speaking, even though he's done nothing and said nothing since leaving office. I've read the reasons people give for protesting, and those reasons will still be there when Bush is dead. Will you go protest in his cemetery when he dies? You might as well piss on Hitler's grave. Please, folks, please protest somewhere else. We have other problems that need our attention (like global warming and the economy), and there are other problems many of us don't know about which can be called to the public's attention be protesting.

Now, if you think I'm wrong, then you're welcome to reply to this e-mail. And if you do, just remember that it's me, William Moates, who made these statements. And make the criticisms constructive; attacking my character (or lack thereof) will do nothing to weaken the points in my arguments.

Hey, if you have something else on your mind, I'd like to hear it: Join us at our weekly meeting tonight at 7:30 pm at the Green Bean in downtown Greensboro. I'd be just as happy to hear about other things.

-William Moates
DL Chapter Co-Host

When Obama overturned Bush's no-embryonic-stem-cell-research decree, I sighed a sigh of relief, and it was for several reasons.

One reason was the blockage of beneficial research. I didn't like how Bush put up a wall to certain research, and told us to only research adult stem cells. Now, we can research the WHOLE picture of stem cells, not just the adult stem cells, so we can learn more throughly how adult and embryonic stem cells differ. We can see how they reach in the same situation, so we can compare their performance. In some situations, adult stem cells may regenerate tissue better than embryonic stem cells, and that's good to know, because you may be able to use a person's own stem cells to repair tissue, and the new tissues wouldn't be rejected by the body. One of the biggest problems with organ transplants is rejection by the host, and if we could somehow grow organs from the host's own cells, the new organs would not be rejected. So, we can now go forward with stem cell research, and catch up with all the other countries who haven't been so hindered.

The other reason Bush's decree bothered me is because of its inconsistency. How can a group that labels themselves "pro-life" only care about the life before it's born? Also, if they're against the destruction of these embryos, then shouldn't they preventing the doctors from throwing away the unused embryos? If they are really against the destruction of frozen embryos, then they should create a facility to preserve the unwanted embryos, and provide them to women who want to have babies. In essence, pro-lifers should create embryo orphanages.

OK, I've just Googled "embryo orphanage", and it led me to Google "embryo adoption" which brought up this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3076556/) at MSNBC about the Snowflake babies, and all the ethical problems such a program raises; an interesting read. Along the article's line, I would add this: if an embryo is legally considered a person, then for every miscarriage, the police would have to charge the women with involuntary manslaughter, since they had killed the babies they were carrying. In general, giving embryos rights opens up a can of worms. I just wish these Republicans would think things through.

In any event, we will be having our weekly DL meeting at the Green Bean tonight at 7:30 pm. Come one by, and we can think of ways to make Republicans think before they speak!

-William Moates
DL Chapter Co-Host

I didn't watch Rush's speech at CPAC, but from some of the commentary I've heard, people are acting like he's the new head of the GOP. To me, he's just the mouthpiece of the GOP, stating their views, but lacking political power. Maybe we should just call him "the mouth of the GOP" instead; that seems a more apt description of his position in the party. Besides, would the GOP want to be represented by someone who looks like an extra from the Sopranos? Heck, even Barney Frank fills a suit better than Rush does.

By the way, when Rush says "I hope [Obama] fails", I don't then he's any less patriotic than the lefties who said the same thing about Bush 43, I just thing that both groups were tactless and counterproductive. I *want* Republicans to criticize Obama--as long as they do so *constructively*. I'm sick of partisan politics, and I think both major parties should STOP IT, and instead work toward fixing the problems we are facing, instead of bickering at each other.

Well, if you'd like to comment on Rush's dressing choices, talk about how the local govs handled the snowfall, or critique the new Presidential Swing Set (sources close to the President give it two thumbs up), then come on down to the Green Bean tonight at 7:30-pm and regale us with your stories!

-William Moates
Chapter Co-Host

Parting Thought: do pets get cankles?