AllTheseThings

Nobody Likes Me!

I have been telling people for a while now, that Sen. Hillary Clinton has a very tough battle ahead of her, if she wants to become President.  It is not because she can't win the Democratic primary, I think she can--I don't necessarily think she will, but she can.  Her problem is her extremely high 'negatives' with average Americans--meaning polling numbers that have voters not liking/approving/voting for her.

This new poll has her negatives crossing the 50% threshold.  Given that you, generally speaking, need over 50% of the people to vote for you to win, having 52% of Americans say they would never vote for you is a very bad thing.  And it is not just high negatives with Republicans, Independents are not going for her either: 

"Hillary's carrying a lot of baggage," [the pollster] said. "She's the only one that has a majority who say they can't vote for her."

Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn't consider voting for her.

Think about that:  the first serious female candidate for President in U.S. history, and 47% OF WOMEN say "they wouldn't consider voting for her."  WOULDN'T CONSIDER IT?!?  That's pretty bad.  I assume her campaign was not planning on winning the general election by barely eeking out a victory among women.

To win the presidency, you have to nearly sweep your own party--she can do that--win the independents, and pick up some from the other side.  But these numbers are of people who will NOT vote for her--or even consider doing so--and that makes this a pretty bleak position to be in.  It is made worse by the fact that her name recognition--how many people know her--is very high.  Thus, people know her and don't like her, as opposed to most candidates at this point in a race, who don't have their name ID high enough.

Keep in mind, however, that these polls usually are generic and not pitting one person against another.  So it is not like the women or Independents are getting a "who would you vote for, Clinton or Gingrich" type of question.  Often, when forced to, they will pick the "lesser of two evils" if they don't like either candidate.  So today they say they "won't consider it" when tomorrow, they do.  That said, having this many people not even consider you, makes your primary and general-election opponents get a HUGE benefit of the doubt and first chance to impress voters.  They are basically going to look for anyone they can vote for instead of her.

Interestingly, the far lesser known Mitt Romney (a GOP candidate) also has high negatives.  You can't explain this as easily, as he was never on the national stage like Hillary was.  The pollster speculates that it is his Mormon religion that is causing people to refuse to consider him.  I haven't seen polling on that, but it does seem a logical guess.  He's friendly, well spoken, good looking, and a Republican in a Democrat state (Massachusetts) who has not done anything too controversial.  Given those facts, it is probably not his political career that makes him so reviled (unlike Clinton and, say, McCain.)  You can, therefore, assume it is something about his personal life that is causing the negatives to go up--and in this case, the most prominent issue is his being Mormon.

They like me, they really, really like me,

Thomas More

[email protected]

The Lazarus Drug

HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is a formidable opponent. One of the strongest weapons in its arsenal is its amazing ability to mutate while it grows, allowing it to dodge and weave it’s way around any single drug we throw at it. For that reason, pharmaceutical companies have been working hard to develop better, stronger drugs to knock the virus down. The best approach, it turns out, has been to use a “cocktail” of powerful drugs so that if the virus mutates it’s way around one, there will be several more in the mix to keep it under control.

Another trick has been to mix drugs which attack the virus at different points in its growth cycle. Some drugs stop it getting into the cell. Others allow it into the cell, but stop it making more copies of itself once it gets in there. A third kind allow the virus to get into the cell, make more copies of itself and even exit the cell, but without its full coat of armour, making it to weak to spread any further. Put all these drugs together and…..POW! BAM! ZAP! The virus isn’t gone but it’s pretty incapacitated.

“So”, you ask, “if these drugs are so powerful, why haven’t we stopped the AIDS epidemic?” (we haven’t stopped the epidemic, by the way).  Many reasons: the drugs are very expensive, they must be taken several times a day without fail, and they are so powerful that they have some pretty unpleasant side effects. And, believe it or not, sometimes the virus can STILL mutate its way around all of them. A formidable opponent indeed.

It’s been a while since the drug companies have come up with anything to significantly improve the potent drug cocktails first developed in the late 90’s. But that might change pretty soon. The company Merck has developed a new drug “raltegravir”, which attacks HIV from yet another angle. They’ve tested this drug on patients who have tried every other drug cocktail and exhausted their options (candidates for “salvage therapy” with experimental drugs). The results have been so impressive, that raltegravir is being called “the Lazarus drug”. It’s been so effective on the patients tested so far that it has literally raised them from their deathbeds.

That’s good news. There are still more tests to be done on individuals with different stages of HIV infection, but there is hope that we have one more weapon in our war against HIV. Let’s hope that as many people as possible get a chance at new life.

Philomena

[email protected]

Going Home

Some of you might recall that one of our bloggers--Didymus--posted last February about his daugher, Emily.  It was the day before Emily turned 5 years old--despite the fact that the doctors had given her "6 weeks to 6 months" when she was born.  Sadly, she passed away today.  I know many of our readers were praying for little Emily and her family, so I wanted to pass this news on to you.  I know her life was full of purpose, and she (and God) taught Didymus a lot in her short time here.  And I have learned much from watching the family go through it all--they are a remarkable group. 

While Emily leaves behind her mom and dad, brother, and sister, we can take comfort in the truth that she's home now.  Please pray for her family in this time of mourning.

Thomas More

[email protected]

Taking Off the Training Wheels

A few months back, the eldest Morette and I were riding bikes together.  She was still using training wheels at the time--and so was I, in a sense.  As we came towards home she peddled ahead a bit.  As I approached our curb, I saw her off her bike fiddling with the back wheel.  I pulled up and asked her what she was up to.  "I'm taking off the training wheels," she replied.  And she did, with her hands.  I went in and got a wrench to help, but she led the charge.

She had noticed that other kids in the neighborhood weren't using them anymore, so she decided it was time for her to brave the asphalt with only two wheels.  I had not encouraged this--and was even a bit skeptical--but I let her try it.  We went out to the center of the road.  She didn't ask for a lesson, and I didn't give one.  With two wobbly wheels beneath her, I held her seat while she got her balance, and then took a few steps steadying her.  Then, off she went.  She went to the end of the block and stopped.  I came down and held again, this time with fewer steps.  Back at our house, she turned around, and then took off without my help.  And she has been riding ever since. 

There have been a few little falls since then, but nothing major.  She loves to ride now, and is proud of not having the training wheels.  What I love about it is that it wasn't my idea, it was hers.  She knew it was time to try, and had the courage to do it.

Her display of courage on our sidewalk--taking on the next challenge in life, unscrewing those training wheels--had a big impact on me.  It was around that same time that I started wondering what to do about my work life.  I have been working for others my entire career.  Over the last year or so, it has felt less and less satisfying.  The anxiety was rising faster than the raises were rising!

Watching Morette One taking off those training wheels had a profound effective on me:  it gave me the courage to do the same thing. 

So today was my first day working for the new boss:  Thomas More.  I'm on my own, with no safety wheels.  It's a bit scary, and a bit exhilarating. 

As I finish my first day without training wheels, I wanted to thank all my friends that have been an encouragement to me leading up to this move.  And I wanted to thank my family for giving me the courage to try.

Ride on,

Thomas More

[email protected]

A new perspective

My dear friend just lost her 2-month-old baby to SIDS.  We talked today about the pain and the healing, about trusting God when we don’t FEEL Him nearby, about releasing balloons at her gravesite.  I wiped tears from my eyes as I tried to get a tiny glimpse of what it must feel like to lose your precious baby.

My friend sent me this link http://www.prayercoverings.com/articles.php?article=79 that blew my mind.  I want to share it with you.  This article originally ran in Christiany Today. It is one of the most profound pieces I've ever read, mainly because it shook my perspective completely.  It's awe-inspiring.

May we all have the right perspective as we live our fragile lives.

Love,

Lucy

Middle-Aged Reader

'Pride and Prejudice,' inaugurated my book group six years ago.  Since then, five to ten fellow mothers have gathered at each others' houses six months of the year in order to discuss a novel.  Willa Cather's 'Death Comes to the Archbishop', Wendell Berry's 'Hannah Coulter' and Dostoyevsky's 'Brothers Karamazov' are three other novels which we enjoyed.  While one member named her daughter after 'My Antonia': another lady despised the character.  Often we agree on what we like or dislike, but we come at the works from different angles.

Our personal quirks show up in every novel - somewhat like in the recent book about a book group devoted to Austen novels.  I didn't like the book, but it makes me giggle to see Dee bring up the historical background for every work; she has a PhD in history.  Jan is headstrong, understands
the reality of suffering in this world and the importance of submitting to one's husband; Antonia drove her crazy, but she loved Philippa in 'In This House of Brede,' by Rumer Godden.  For the most part, we have an unspoken agreement that redemption must be part of the story for us to love it.

This being my last book group before we move East, I forced the ladies to read another Jane Austen novel: 'Persuasion.'  Forgiveness certainly plays a role in 'Persuasion'.  But compared to Shusako Endo's 'Silence' which describes persecution of Christians in eighteenth century Japan, it is light weight.  I used to love Austen's novels.  The banter of Mr. Darcy and Elizabeth Bennett is still my favorite use of conversation in literature.  However, her works lack the heights and depths of the fight between good and evil.  The rush and gush of falling in love no longer satisfy the thirty minutes which I can grab here and there.

Have I tipped over the edge and into middle-age?  Reading about joy and perseverance amidst suffering, in marriage, within one's community is what moves me now.  I will always turn to and laugh aloud at my favorite passages in Austen, but think Dostoyevsky and Berry settle in my heart.

Over-the-hill but not yet under it,

Beth

[email protected]

Loud and clear

The title of one of my recent small group studies was “noise”. (It was part of Rob Bell’s Nooma series of DVDs for group discussion). The questions were pretty pertinent and challenging: “Is the world around us getting louder?” “What are the sources of noise in your life?”. And the kicker, “Do you ever intentionally create noise around you?”. “Why is silence so hard?”. My answers were, “yes, my TV and my stereo, yes and I don’t know I’ve never thought about it until now”.

This subject has stayed with me for a couple of weeks now. I hadn’t paid much attention to the noise in my life, but now I’m taking note of it. Some of it is unavoidable: traffic outside my apartment, dogs barking, babies crying……(not my dogs or my babies!), but a lot of it is created by me purely for the purposes of distraction. The radio or the TV are almost always playing in the background when I’m at home.

I didn’t really see the problem until we talked about it in small group. I think that’s the thing about noise-if you increase the volume slowly, slowly, slowly then you don’t really notice the change. But one of the major points of the discussion we had was that most of us would say we wished God’s voice was louder in our lives. But, we are constantly drowning Him out. So, if He speaks to us in silence, when would that be? Do we ever allow ourselves to be silent? We know that God never forces Himself on us, so He is unlikely to compete with the distractions we create. Maybe He just waits patiently for us to realise the gap we’ve created and to take action.

I tried recently to create some silence in my home. You would think it would be easy, since there’s no-one else there to derail the plan. But the urge to turn on that stereo was strong! The first hour of silence was very hard, but it got more comfortable the longer it lasted. I can’t stay I did anything particularly “spiritual” during that time, but it was certainly a good feeling to have finally broken the habit.
If I can keep it up, maybe I’ll finally hear God’s voice, loud and clear.

Philomena

[email protected]