HERE! HERE!

In following this thread, the following thoughts come to mind.

I think the biggest polling mistakes I have made in the past, and I'm sure others have to, is to vote based on a single self serving issue or belief. There are pluses and minuses on both side of the fences on any issue. One has to weight the importance of and take into account the overall picture from national security to abortion/stem cell research to electing the dog catcher and decide what would be best overall for the country. Because if the country doesn't survive, personal issues mean nothing and will never be resolved. I have found that focusing on the long term is much more important than the short term and in the end resolves or minimizes the short term issues.

Darwin

-- FrankandTeri <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
President Bush is a fine and compassionate leader of this country.  He has
consistently demonstrated his concern for those less fortunate.  The sign of
a great leader is one that surrounds himself with people he can trust and
who are experts in their field of focus.  He continues to do this.  He will
continue to be concerned and take all reasonable actions in support of those
less fortunate.  He is a moral man and struggles with great decisions every
day.  I don't agree with all he has done or stands for.  This is quite
normal.  No single person can be everything to all.

We are a great country but not one with unlimited resources.  There are two
very human conditions were are faced with here.  When there is a single
position of power there will always be many who want it and there will be
political competition for it.  When they compete they say things they would
not normally say and they always attribute the "other side" with "evil
intentions."

IT IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE to say President Bush has declared war on the majority
of American citizens!  How absurd.  This is pure garbage.  If you want to
make a statement regarding a position you would like the government or out
leaders to take please do it.  That is part of normal discussion and debate.
Insults like this have no place here and are not a focus of this board.

The second human condition is selfishness and self centeredness.  When
something goes wrong with us it must be the most terrible thing that could
ever happen to anyone.  We just can't seem to face that we as an individual
are not the center of the universe.  That comes from survival instinct.  I
can't blame anyone for this.  It is just something we as humans are
ingrained with.  I can assure you however there are millions worse off in
the world than anyone who posts on this board and I don't see other world
leaders who are so obviously evil being attacked here.  I guess it's because
we are relatively safe here so why worry about others in immediate danger we
need to worry about ourselves and what we think is important.  We should
only mention other real evil leaders if it suites our immediate cause.

At the core of most of these insulting posts you will find these two
understandable basic human instincts that are centered on survival.  Those
wanting to take power will always prey on those survival instincts.  They
will paint the side in power as evil and themselves as the righteous
champion of those who are suffering.  This goes for all parties,
revolutionaries, terrorists, religious leaders, military leaders and medical
leaders etc.  They are all saviors of all and those in power are evil.  I
ask you if that's the case how has this country been able to progress so far
in so little time?  It is because we tend to back leaders who are focused on
the common good.  The common good is not always our good but it helps move
us forward in a thoughtful manner.  We have not moved backward under
leadership of the Democrats and we have not moved backward under the
leadership of the Republicans both parties just have different approaches to
the same goal.  The question is not who is evil, neither party is.  The
question is which party can carry our personal agenda further.  That's where
the selfishness comes in, "our personal agenda."

Now I ask you how does an OUTRIGHT BOLDFACE LIE like "Bush has declared war
on the majority of American citizens"  further the common interest of this
board which is to work together and support each other in the face of this
horrible disease?

I would also ask you, as I have before to substitute the name of a loved on
for those you are attacking and see if it is a fair discussion on a topic
you may legitimately disagree with a loved one on.  SO lets see how that
works.  "The mother of Nina Brown has declared war on the majority of
children in the US because she told her daughter not to do something she
felt was not moral and she suggested that she play with friends who did not
get into trouble."   Some how that does not seem to be respectful of a
person I am sure is loved and with whom someone might have disagreed with.

As long as lies like this are posted I will reply in this positive manner.
Lets focus on helping each other. Lets focus on the subject.

I need help.  I need hope.  I need guidance on dealing with this terrible
disease.  I don't need political opinions.  I don't need religious views.  I
don't want to see people I care about and respect insulted.  I don't want to
see my religious, political and personal views depicted as evil.  I will
keep them to myself and seek the help and understanding of all here.  I will
provide the same to all regardless of their political or religious beliefs.
I will however not remain idle if postings on this board refer to a
respected and compassionate leader of any party are with such BOLD FACED
LIES.

With all respect to all living creatures.

Frank




----- Original Message -----
From: "Nina P. Brown" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 8:07 PM
Subject: FW: Bush has declared war on the majority of American citizens!


> President Bush has declared war on the health and well-being of all
> Americans!
> Earlier this month 60 leading scientists and philosophers, including Nobel
> laureates, backed a Union of Concerned Scientists report that accused the
> Bush administration of distorting scientific advice to fit ideological
> goals.
> The following article taken from yesterday's Washington Post reported that
> Bush dismissed two members of his handpicked Council on Bioethics -- a
> scientist and a moral philosopher who had been among the more outspoken
> advocates for research on human embryo cells.
> In their places he appointed three new members, including a doctor who has
> called for more religion in public life, a political scientist who has
> spoken out precisely against the research that the dismissed members
> supported and another who has written about the immorality of abortion and
> the "threats of biotechnology."
> It's apparent that this "advisory" council is not constituted to discuss
and
> debate all aspects of scientific and ethical views on biomedical research.
> Rather, they have been selected to reinforce the President's
predetermined,
> ideological views.
> What ever happened to the concept of government by, for and of the people?
> He was elected to be and promised to be the president of all the people
and
> by law, he is.   His philosophy is "don't bother me with facts, my mind is
> already made up."  As our elected leader, President Bush owes it to the
> millions of people affected by this decision to consider all sides of the
> question.
> Our President borders on being as righteously sure of his positions as the
> terrorists are of theirs.  This philosophy borders on being a threat to
> democracy.
> +++
> Bush Ejects Two From Bioethics Council
> Changes Renew Criticism That the President Puts Politics Ahead of Science
> By Rick Weiss
> Washington Post
> Saturday, February 28, 2004; Page A06
> President Bush yesterday dismissed two members of his handpicked Council
on
> Bioethics -- a scientist and a moral philosopher who had been among the
more
> outspoken advocates for research on human embryo cells.
> In their places he appointed three new members, including a doctor who has
> called for more religion in public life, a political scientist who has
> spoken out precisely against the research that the dismissed members
> supported, and another who has written about the immorality of abortion
and
> the "threats of biotechnology."
> The turnover immediately renewed a recent string of accusations by
> scientists and others that Bush is increasingly allowing politics to trump
> science as he seeks advice on ethically contentious issues.
> Last week, a Washington-based interest group released a report detailing
> what it called many examples of the administration distorting the
scientific
> process to achieve desired policy answers relating to pollution, embryo
> research and other topics. Some in Congress, led by Rep. Henry A. Waxman
> (D-Calif.), have also been getting vocal on the topic, as have academics,
> scientific organizations and science journal editors.
> One of the dismissed members, Elizabeth Blackburn, is a renowned biologist
> at the University of California at San Francisco. She said she received a
> call yesterday morning from someone in the White House personnel office.
> "He said the White House had decided to make some changes on the council.
He
> wanted to express his gratitude and said I'd no longer be on the council,"
> Blackburn said.
> She said she had no warning and had not heard from the council's director,
> University of Chicago ethicist Leon Kass. She said she believed she was
let
> go because her political views do not match those of the president and of
> Kass, with whom she has often been at odds at council meetings.
> "I think this is Bush stacking the council with the compliant," Blackburn
> said.
> The other dismissed member, William May, an emeritus professor of ethics
at
> Southern Methodist University, is a highly respected scholar whose views
on
> embryo research and other topics had also run counter to those of
> conservative council members. Efforts to reach him last night were
> unsuccessful.
> Asked why Blackburn and May had been let go, White House spokeswoman Erin
> Healy said the two members' terms had expired in January, and they were on
> "holdover status." Asked whether, in fact, all the council members' terms
> had formally expired in January, she said they had.
> Pressed on why Blackburn and May had been singled out for dismissal, she
> said: "We've decided to go ahead and appoint other individuals with
> different expertise and experience." She would not elaborate further.
> Kass, who has written prolifically about biotechnology's toll on human
> dignity and was selected by Bush to head the council, was traveling
> yesterday and could not be reached.
> Bush created the council by executive order in 2001 to "advise the
President
> on bioethical issues that may emerge as a consequence of advances in
> biomedical science and technology." He recently renewed its commission for
> another two years.
> The group of scholars, scientists, theologians and others has produced
> several reports, including ones on human cloning, stem cell research and
the
> use of biotechnology to enhance human beings. But the council has often
> found it difficult to reach consensus on issues.
> The three new appointees are Benjamin Carson, the high-profile director of
> pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University; Diana Schaub, chairman
> of the department of political science at Loyola College in Maryland; and
> Peter Lawler, a professor of government at Berry College in Georgia. All
are
> respected members of their fields. And their writings suggest their
tenures
> will be less contentious than their predecessors'.
> When not performing some of the most difficult surgeries in the world,
> Carson is a motivational speaker who often invokes religion and the Bible
> and has lamented that "we live in a nation where we can't talk about God
in
> public."
> Schaub has effusively praised Kass and his work. In a 2002 public forum
> discussing the council's cloning report, she talked about research in
which
> embryos are destroyed as "the evil of the willful destruction of innocent
> human life."
> In a book review in the conservative Weekly Standard in late 2002, Lawler
> warned that if the United States does not soon "become clear as a nation
> that abortion is wrong," then women will eventually be compelled to abort
> genetically defective babies.
> Michael Gazzaniga, a Dartmouth neuroscientist who sits on the council,
said
> he was "upset" by Blackburn's ejection.
> "She was one of the basic scientists who understood the biology of many of
> the issues we're talking about," Gazzaniga said. "It will be a loss for
> sure."
> Research editor Margot Williams contributed to this report.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn