John,
You had me with you for most of your message. I assume the reference to Trojans is to Trojan Horses or ideas that are masked as to their real intent. Certainly there are a lot of people who for personal gain or advancement of their own causes believe that the gain through subterfuge is perfectly fine as long as the results they seek are achieved.
There is enough ignorance both in our leadership and in the general population to make this sort of action possible. Certainly any world wide prohibition, via the UN, on stem cell research through therapeutic cloning would be ignored by most governments. In the particular case of the United States this administration has taken a guarded approach. This position does not suit many of us, because we are close to the problem and better informed on the subject. Remember that the position is only using government distributed funds, not private funds.
Politics has more of a tendency to divide than to solve differences of position. The guarded approach to the subject of cloning is a response to a large segment of the population that is "churched". That segment is being told as many half truths and simplistic phrases as much as the segment that supports cloning is about the cure being "just around the next corner". Truth is elusive in this discussion.
This the good part and the best action: "We in the Parkinson's community have had the services of people like you and me walk the halls of the U.S. Congress seeking more federal funding for the NIH for Parkinson's research. Over the years Parkinson's Action Network (PAN) has successfully lobbied for increases in Parkinson's research funding." If 5% of the money that goes into the "Pork barrel" were spent on Neurological research we would all be more comfortable and maybe "cured". That could be both parties responsibility. After all these diseases are spread about equally in the voting segment.
Maybe we should also lobby our Church leaders to make some honest effort to determine when a few cells are really a human being. That will take education and not a little prayer. I don't like being stuck with simplistic view for the foreseeable future.
Here is where you lose me. "If Hope costs money we can't have any because "the people's money" has already been distributed to these who make over $200,000 a year. The idea of a "rainy day fund" is beyond them. Paying for running the government with IOU's is ok if it is a tax cut for special interests."
Just where did you get the idea that the "people's money" is collected from the poor and indigent. The tax burden falls on those who have incomes in excess of $100,000 (close to 80%). Sure they can afford it! Their spending is what drives the economic engine in this country and a few more. The country needs a robust economy that actually produces more dollars that can be spent on research for our benefit. Both parties are beholden to "special interests". Just the names change when we change leaders, the game is played that way. You may not agree with how to get the robust economy, but the need for one still exists.
The tag line about a "trial lawyer" is a hoot. Ranks right up there with Zell Miller's "spitballs".
Regards, Bill Lawless
[Post hoc, ergo propter hoc!] a logical fallacy.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Cottingham
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 4:18 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
Subject: Trojans: Right vs Wrong, Science vs Religion
