Click here for the news article
This is a troubling moral problem. The little girl was born brain damaged, can't walk, talk, eat, or goto the bathroom. So her parents decided it would be in her best interest to perform surgery that will keep her stunted or won't allow her to grow and develop parts that she would eventually cause her pain - such as full hysterectomy to prevent menstrual cramps.
The doctors who performed the surgery went against the law, something to do with not following full procedures in terms of medical review. But doctors doing the right thing is another topic.
Are the parents incorrect to 'butcher' the little girl so that she remains a child forever? Gosh, as I child I had hopes and aspirations that any problems can be overcome. As an adult, reality sinks with bills, responsibilities, and sustaining a way of life that I didn't have to worry about as a kid.
The adult in me suggests that the parents did the right thing for their own sanity as well as their little girls pain.
The child in me says, 'stem cell research', 'dna pre-screening', 'gene-therapy' are options that should be made available to all people having children to ensure everyone doesn't suffer unnecessarily.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Georgia on Who's Mind? Not Purdue!
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/03/10/revenue_0311.html
Based on above article, you simply have to wonder what the heck our Governor is doing to this state?
We already have the worst commute, poor education, corrupt politicians/state employees, and some of the nations worst sports!
And now he's thinking of cutting educators pay!? - and then not provide new computers to school systems in need - which gives wealthier neighborhoods an advantage over the impoverished!
Wasn't there talk if McCain would be voted in as president that he'd considered Purdue as his running mate - talk about compounding mistakes!? Wasn't Purdue misusing taxpayer funds by traveling via helicopter to and fro places to avoid the beat traffic? Doesn't he walk around with overpaid, overweight bodyguards that spit tobacco?
With Purdue in office, Georgia has lacked an identity and is only marred by reconstruction that seems to benefit only corporations and not improve the quality of living that once marked its status as an elite city to live in!
Time for Change! Purdue must go!
(disclaimer: this message was not in part paid by the campaign for barack obama and any subsequent advisers to said party, as its the use and privilege of the author to express an opinion/sentiments that are merely echoed by aforementioned political platform.)
Based on above article, you simply have to wonder what the heck our Governor is doing to this state?
We already have the worst commute, poor education, corrupt politicians/state employees, and some of the nations worst sports!
And now he's thinking of cutting educators pay!? - and then not provide new computers to school systems in need - which gives wealthier neighborhoods an advantage over the impoverished!
Wasn't there talk if McCain would be voted in as president that he'd considered Purdue as his running mate - talk about compounding mistakes!? Wasn't Purdue misusing taxpayer funds by traveling via helicopter to and fro places to avoid the beat traffic? Doesn't he walk around with overpaid, overweight bodyguards that spit tobacco?
With Purdue in office, Georgia has lacked an identity and is only marred by reconstruction that seems to benefit only corporations and not improve the quality of living that once marked its status as an elite city to live in!
Time for Change! Purdue must go!
(disclaimer: this message was not in part paid by the campaign for barack obama and any subsequent advisers to said party, as its the use and privilege of the author to express an opinion/sentiments that are merely echoed by aforementioned political platform.)
Friday, March 7, 2008
Politiking 2008
I'm not a political analyst, but I can't help but wonder whether this country should still cling to flip-flopping political parties every four to eight years for the long term health of this nation? In every other context, that's known as indecision - and it just feels that we're losing our identity as a nation because of this.
I don't think there's one good solution - but perhaps 'change' is the wrong buzz word for what this nation needs in terms of stability? Shouldn't each platform offer to "improve" or "adapt" on what the previous administration did? It doesn't seem like logical progression for new management to completely overhaul the current system every time there's something wrong.
It just makes more sense for the head honcho of this country to NOT be aligned with any political party, but be voted in to make the best of what is currently available. For example, if it's John McCain as our next president, he shouldn't opt for the liberals/demos to take the high road, he just needs to make bipartisan decisions for the best immediate/long term health of this country! Perhaps we need a neutral judge type character to be our president?
Ok, so thinking out loud - why should America vote for a candidate that only benefits half the country with their political platform of ideas and plans? That system seems ultimately flawed!
It's like owning a company, and about to hire a new employee with these credentials, "only wants to work 8-12 but get paid fulltime, doesn't have the necessary skills, but is very friendly, and will mesh well with the staff!"
Instead of "works independently/diligently, desires competitive compensation for full-time salary, has the skill set and gets along with everyone"?
So when voting this year, pick the person you think brings the complete package, or don't vote at all. Fug settling. Fug platforms. Fug your own issues. We all own pieces of this company we call America -hire the ultimate best solution for the overall health/care/productivity of your investment.
We're not a country of change, we're a country of adaptation.
Survival of the fittest favors adaptation.
Bipartison Political Party?! Dopeness, at least I'm not alone in this way of thought.
I don't think there's one good solution - but perhaps 'change' is the wrong buzz word for what this nation needs in terms of stability? Shouldn't each platform offer to "improve" or "adapt" on what the previous administration did? It doesn't seem like logical progression for new management to completely overhaul the current system every time there's something wrong.
It just makes more sense for the head honcho of this country to NOT be aligned with any political party, but be voted in to make the best of what is currently available. For example, if it's John McCain as our next president, he shouldn't opt for the liberals/demos to take the high road, he just needs to make bipartisan decisions for the best immediate/long term health of this country! Perhaps we need a neutral judge type character to be our president?
Ok, so thinking out loud - why should America vote for a candidate that only benefits half the country with their political platform of ideas and plans? That system seems ultimately flawed!
It's like owning a company, and about to hire a new employee with these credentials, "only wants to work 8-12 but get paid fulltime, doesn't have the necessary skills, but is very friendly, and will mesh well with the staff!"
Instead of "works independently/diligently, desires competitive compensation for full-time salary, has the skill set and gets along with everyone"?
So when voting this year, pick the person you think brings the complete package, or don't vote at all. Fug settling. Fug platforms. Fug your own issues. We all own pieces of this company we call America -hire the ultimate best solution for the overall health/care/productivity of your investment.
We're not a country of change, we're a country of adaptation.
Survival of the fittest favors adaptation.
Bipartison Political Party?! Dopeness, at least I'm not alone in this way of thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
