Progress versus Process? Not.
sent to King County Journal today re: 11-11-03 edition

It is very interesting the gubernatorial campaign's "Rossi says he needs $5 million" is the lead story and the Second Opinion page lead is Thomas Friedman's "Iraq's No. 1 priority: a leader". Finding a leader should be our No. 1 priority.

However there is one other thing I find interesting: The process.

Rossi blames the process for our problems in Washington, while Friedman sees it as the solution to ours in Iraq. It seems that if we were fighting for democracy we would not blame it for our difficulties and short-change it for our progress.

We have even let terrorists get credit for using it (democracy and our own freedoms that come with it) to our own loss while we stab it in the back.

It would be nice to make progress without a process, but as Bush joked in his first press appearance "things would be easier if I were dictator." We might all wish that we could dictate to some degree, but it is what we should be fighting. Here before we go there.

If we put progress before all else, will we focus on the process of democracy itself? How will we help others if we ignore our own process of profit motive not to mention voting methods? I hope the media will do its share in focusing on the process that others would try to recreate in our own image, but it will take our focus as well. Progress takes process and change together.