|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: bushismFrom: Henry Gregor (henrygregor@yahoo.com)Thu Nov 11 16:22:32 2004
Oh, not at all. I've very proud, in fact, that America won the Cold War, a topic all too many of our fellow citizens gagged on when it came up at the time of Reagan's death. I'm also tolerant of the realpolitk that sometimes requires any of our governments to deal with terrible tyrants at times, which far too many of our citizens criticize various administrations for having done...our dance with Stalin, undertaken to win WWII comes to mind, though it of course brought on the cold war. I'm proud of the great civil rights act of the '60's...hey, I stood on some lines expressing what I thought were productive viewpoints...but I also recall it was a Republican Senator - Ev Dirkson - who got enough Republican votes in line to allow a Democratic administration to get that bill passed...and it surely would have failed had the Democratic prez had to depend on Democratic congressional votes. I recall it was Richard Nixon who accommodated, against his native instincts I suppose, to efforts by the opposition party and went along with an Endagered Species bill. Politics is full of saints and sinners of all persuasions. It was a Clinton dealing with a Republicam House majority that allowed him to achieve what, IMHO, he hasn't gotten enough credit for. So...what I don't think is a productive political process is exactly the example I cited of Nancy Pelosi. I don't think its appropriate for the political party leaders of either side to give a "dead on arrival" advance response to the proposals of whichever party is in executive or congressional control at any moment in time. I think Ms. Pelosi has her head in the sand if she thinks that attitude is going to help maintian a vibrant opposition party. I think its especially unconcionable to rant, as JK did, that he'll make no changes, appoint a bipartisan committee, blah, blah, when by intellect and senatorial experience one knows he's aware of the Moynihan/Kerry report, when he knows the demographics of our society are putting more and more older recipients onto the receiving end of SS, and fewer young workers putting contributions into the funds that sustain the program. Perhaps some think that is a productive process. I don't, and I think a lot of voters felt so, and one can read the Nov 6 th NYTimes oped to appreciate that the simplistic "it was the evangelicals" doesn't explain the election results. If our Democratic party can't examine some of it methods and content, then our political process will indeed suffer. Our system works best with two strong parties. Yes, it can get messy, and that's fine. But if an obdurate unwillingness un the part of anyone leads to a steadfast refusal to examine what works and what doesn't, the system's potential is diminished.An extremist rigidy of intellect on either side of the political divide serves the country poorly. And yes, this is a great country. It is the one to which many millions folks aspire, and for reasons often unappreciated by many of us who are privileged to be citizens. H DoctorJoe@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 11/11/04 09:20:39, henrygregor@yahoo.com writes: We need more than one regime change, in more than one party, if we're going to have some chance of productive political process, IMHO. Hmmmmm, so you don't think the change the "New Deal" and then the "New Frontier" and then the "Great Society" and then "Reaganomics" and "Mr. Gorbi, knock down that wall!" and then "The Clinton White House" and then "W" constitutes a productive political process??? Geeze! Maybe you just have to stand back and watch the pendulum (and calculate it's period, as opposed to worrying about periods in the office all the time) and realize the political process in the U.S. of A is what makes all this run in the first place. Joe P. Or not . . . . Just worry about the other periods and wait until someone WITH those types of periods runs in 2008 (remember her? Mizz Healthcare?). Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. http://www.yahoo.com
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Tue Sep 2 05:02:08 2008 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.