 |
 |
Somewhere in the old testament (Job?) it says that "there is nothing new under the sun". The French have a related saying, usually expressed in English as ""the more things change, the more they stay the same". Anyone doubting the basic truths behind these timeworn statements need only look to the internet and e-mail to have them reconfirmed. Wonderful as this "new" thing is it is still just people communicating and we bring to it our oldest possession - human nature. Take our own list for example. It is human nature which gives us the highest moments on this list and also our lowest. It is human nature to call for one and all to join in the campaign to have the Udall funds made available. It is human nature to extend the invitation to non US citizens to add their voice to the push. It is also human nature to forget that the whole matter of "foreign " involvement in US political affairs was debated at some length last year during the campaign to have the bill passed. The sheer guts and determination of our US listmembers in organising themselves to get that bill funded is one of the highpoints of this list. It is a high profile matter and rightly so - but to suggest, on the strength of a poor response to the call for foreign involvement, that the United States is the only place where PD activism is alive and well and that "the American people do it all for the rest of the world" is, to say the least, a bit extreme, not to mention inaccurate. Worst of all it is unfair and belittles the unsung efforts of thousands of people across the world. It is also indicative of a degree of insularity coming as it does so soon after the world launch of Activa DBS therapy, a French innovation using hardware developed in Australia by Medtronics. Finally, I would like to say that when I read the call to contribute, I sat here at my keyboard once more looking for the form of words that would enable me to comply with the request to join in. As I wrote I realised that if I was writing in similar circumstances to my own Member of Parliament, I would be: - asking him/her why my letter was necessary? - wanting to know why a vote to pass the bill was not automatically followed by a vote in favour of funding it? - saying that in my view anybody who voted for the bill with no intention of funding it was guilty of an act of callous manipulation perpetrated at the expense of a particularly vulnerable sector of society. - suggesting that voting for the bill carried a moral requirement to fund it; and finally... - ...I would be saying that I would actively work against the re-election of any MP who, having voted for the bill, voted against funding it. To write in such vein to a US Congressman who neither represents me nor is answerable to me is at best pointless, at worst offensive. I closed the letter, deleted it, and moved on. It is not just for politicians that "politics is the art of the achievable" Dennis. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dennis Greene 48/11 [log in to unmask] http://members.networx.net.au/~dennisg/ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++