With regard to my subject line: Please excuse my frustration, saying
President Bush has declared war may have been an overstatement, but I feel
that President Bush has targeted research in regenerative medicine. I have
found myself in a position of having to be an advocate, fighting for the
lives of my children and grandchildren and millions of others suffering with
conditions that scientists could cure, if allowed. And, according to polls
that have been taken, 2/3 of Americans are in favor of stem cell research.
It is my understanding that 2/3 still constitutes a majority.
You said, "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." If you
read the attached article, perhaps you missed the quote by Michael
Gazzaniga, a Dartmouth neuroscientist who sits on the council, and 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."
I do agree with your comment that "basic human instincts are centered on
survival." This is also true for politicians, which appears to be the
motivation for Bush's decision.
I did not attack President Bush personally, I did not mention religion -
you did - nor did I call him "evil" (which you found a use for 8 times in
your reply) but is my fervent opinion that our President is following HIS
personal agenda rather than listening to the will of the majority.
President Bush had experts, but since they chose to disagree with him, he
dismissed them.
You referred to the posting as "insulting". I consider it an insult to
my intelligence that the White House doesn't think the people will recognize
that this change in the Council is part of Bush's personal agenda.
I have come to the realization, that because of politics, it is too late
for me to benefit from this science. With regard to MY "personal agenda," I
have lived with Parkinson's for 19 years and spend 18 out of 24 hours of
most of my days working for the Parkinson community in some manner, either
on the local, state or national level. I do not consider myself to be
selfish or self centered. I consider myself an advocate for life.
Orrin Hatch, a conservative pro-life Republican, spent two years studying
the question currently before the Council on Bioethics from a scientific,
moral, ethical and religious perspective. If you are interested in learning
about his conclusions and how he reached them, you can read a copy of the
chapter from his book for which he and his publisher granted permission for
use.
http://www.terrybowers.com/tpg/files/hatch.pdf
-----Original Message-----
From: Parkinson's Information Exchange Network
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of FrankandTeri
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 5:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Bush has declared war on the majority of American citizens!
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
