How fucking awesome if this turns out to be true!

AIDS BREAKTHROUGH: First HIV-Positive Man Cured



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/14/hiv-cure-berlin-patient_n_796521.html

Here's the kicker -

"Brown's case paves a path for constructing a permanent cure for HIV through genetically-engineered stem cells. "

I wonder who all those religious folks who opposed stem-cell research feel about it now?

Home

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/citizens-awake-and-cast-ye-off-the-chains-of-home-ownership-20101212-18tvj.html


This comment got my attention –

Gold is the money of kings; silver is the money of gentlemen; barter is the money of peasants; but debt is the money of slaves.

While the article above really talks about the security of having some place to call home, there’s something the article really misses.

It confuses buying a home with owning a home. They are not the same thing.

Owning a home really means you don’t owe anyone any debt (yes I know, governments really own the land, hence the concept of property tax, but work with me here)

The concept of paying mortgage to some financial institution is really spending 30-40 years buying a house. Oh sure they give you a deed, and on paper it looks like you ‘own’ the property (at least that’s the way the government sees it, since they come to you for the aforementioned property tax).

For the longest time, the concept of equity (which is what the mortgage payment really represents) has been a nice way to placate the middle class into thinking they are moving up in society. And for the longest time it was true.

But the fact is, over the last 20 years, if one has missed payment or two, they are usually not that far away from getting kicked out and losing it all. And truthfully, most people in this day and age are so early into their mortgage that none of their payments are really giving them any real equity at this point. Payments are mostly to cover off the interest in the loan (the ability to negotiate anything beyond that either is not available or not readily apparent).

Removing the concepts of equity and security out of it, then it’s all really no different than renting a house, isn’t it? It’s a dream sold to most people into believing that if they stick it out long enough, they’ll have something to hold onto and call their own at the end of it all. Indeed it’s a dream I’ve bought into.

For most people now, that dream is turning into a nightmare. Many are finding out that absent the equity and security, the ownership and investment in a house is no longer there, but the responsibility and obligation(s) still are. Add to that declining incomes, rising prices and more bills to cover and you have a recipe of financial collapse.

The housing crisis represents a clear case of the eradication of the middle class.

It’s not wonder today that society is slowly moving to extremes. Many people today are awash in debt.


I've always felt that the major strengths of the United States rested in two places, both of which are derived from generally one source: the middle class, and small busineses. I believe there are strong connections from the latter to the former. One can see the future when one looks at how both are treated. We don't need to look elsewhere because we know what each extreme represents.
 
We are slowly moving towards those extremes. Today and tomorrow, there are and will only be really two kinds of people who live in homes: Those who own them, and those who don’t. While I believe myself to be an optimist-at-heart, without knowing what possible solutions there are to address this future problem, I'm at a loss to stay positive.

How to Fix Fake Net Neutrality - if you live in the US, please read and take action

How to Fix Fake Net Neutrality (courtesy Craig Aaron)
Five Steps:

Wireless. Even though Genachowski has said it's "essential that the Internet itself remain open, however users reach it," his proposal would leave wireless networks unprotected. It would enshrine Verizon and AT&T as gatekeepers to the rapidly expanding world of mobile Internet access, allowing them to favor their own applications while blocking, degrading or de-prioritizing others.

Paid Prioritization. Genachowski's proposal reportedly fails to explicitly prohibit deals that would allow ISPs to charge steep tolls to favor the content and services of a select group of corporate partners, relegating everyone else to the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road. (See the video above.)

Key Definitions. The devil is always in the details at the FCC. So it's important how the agency defines terms such as "Broadband Internet Access Service" and "reasonable network management" so giant loopholes aren't created that could undermine the purpose of these rules.

Specialized Services. Last summer's Verizon-Google pact was widely lambasted because the deal would have allowed ISPs to split the Internet into two pipes: the public one we have now and a separate private lane reserved for "specialized services." The FCC needs to be sure there are safeguards so we don't lose today's level playing field where anyone with a good idea has the chance to be the next Google or Facebook.

Legal Footing. Genachowski reportedly is grounding these new rules in the same kind of legal arguments that were rejected by the courts last spring. This strategy presents an unnecessary risk in a short-sighted attempt to avoid "reclassifying" broadband under Title II of the Communications Act. Such a move doesn't just put Net Neutrality on shaky ground, it places the FCC's entire broadband agenda in jeopardy.

Read all about it here - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/the-fccs-guide-to-losing_b_795061.html

And if you live in the US, act now - http://act2.freepress.net/sign/real_net_neutrality/?source=STNhomepage

Secular humanism

I was looking at this link and wondering if this describes my view of life -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism

Seems pretty close.

Driving and parking in the wrong lane.

I don't know what it is about this part of the United States (or whether this is something prevalent) but I find it odd that people park their cars on the wrong side of the road, pointed in the opposite direction of traffic.

In order to do that, one has to cross the street into oncoming traffic and pull up their car so that the headlights are facing .... yes ... oncoming traffic.

Why?

Maybe it's a Pacific Northwest thing?

Word Warriors in DC and Wikileaks

It is a "scandal" when the Government conceals things it is doing without any legitimate basis for that secrecy. Each and every document that is revealed by WikiLeaks which has been improperly classified -- whether because it's innocuous or because it is designed to hide wrongdoing -- is itself an improper act, a serious abuse of government secrecy powers. Because we're supposed to have an open government -- a democracy -- everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling "consent of the governed."



But we have completely abandoned that principle; we've reversed it. Now, everything the Government does is presumptively secret; only the most ceremonial and empty gestures are made public. That abuse of secrecy powers is vast, deliberate, pervasive, dangerous and destructive. That's the abuse that WikiLeaks is devoted to destroying, and which its harshest critics -- whether intended or not -- are helping to preserve. There are people who eagerly want that secrecy regime to continue: namely, (a) Washington politicians, Permanent State functionaries, and media figures whose status, power and sense of self-importance are established by their access and devotion to that world of secrecy, and (b) those who actually believe that -- despite (or because of) all the above acts -- the U.S. Government somehow uses this extreme secrecy for the Good. Having surveyed the vast suffering and violence they have wreaked behind that wall, those are exactly the people whom WikiLeaks is devoted to undermining.

Thank you Mr. Greenward for putting things in perspective when it comes to the impotnent idiots who call themselves the 'media' in the US.

Read it all here.

"Localism" and Columbia River Crossing debate.

In the area where I used to live, there exists a debate over a proposal to replace the Interstate Bridge that goes over the Columbia River, as it's reaching its end-of-life.

This bridge currently is the main surface transportation route and contains the following significant points -

• Interstate 5 - which connects three nations - Canada, the United States , and Mexico
• The states of Oregeon and Washington (and by extention, California)
• Clark County and Multnomah County
• Portand, OR and Vancouver, WA

Lot of traffic goes through this bridge, both commercial, military, and otherwise.

Unfortunately, a lot of the debate is being clouded by various groups with interests that don't take any consideration into resolving the issue from all perspectives.

1. Bicylists - Bikers advocating for a reduced bridge (or no bridge) are out to lunch in their thinking because they don't take into account the impact of the bridge to the regions around them.

2. Liberalish morons - People who write at the Portland Mercury are also clueless in that not building a bridge doesn't reduce carbon emissions. That would only move the problem somewhere else, not solve it.

And even if that were to actually work, it would still not solve the larger problem. Anyone who's ever crossed that bridge would be able to tell you why. Within a few miles is PDX. Airplanes take off and land all day. They use a higher concentrated gasoline, and because they are closer to the atmosphere, can release their emissions into the air much easier. Note that the writier is (conveniently) of Portland Mercury article is now a member of the Sam Adams team. Criticizing Vancouver, WA as 'urban sprawl' is hypocritical when one looks at North Portland. What does one see when entering the state of Oregon through the Interstate Bridge? Target, Hooters, McDonalds, Denny's. Frankly NoPo is urban sprawl, compared to the Vancouver, WA side of the Columbia River. And what about all the concrete snakes being built everywhere in Delta Park (i.e. all the entrance/exits being added to Interstate-5).

This overall inability to see beyond one's path and not be aware of the impacts around them is what I call localism. People who advocate without any regards for the impacts (or even bothering to think about it) are the essence of localism.

(This may differ with the Wikipedia definition of localism - which states: "It is primarily a rural movement." This would seem to imply that only rural folks are primarily about localism)



I don't claim to have all the answers to solving the problem. But doing nothing, or replacing the bridge with nothing are not answers.