![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 11 of 11. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by chemist on June 14, 2005, at 3:10:02
In reply to Re: so's consideration of Lou's post » Lou Pilder, posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 18:38:04
hello there, chemist here...my comments are delineated by asterisks, below...all the best, chemist
> Lou,
>
> I want to acknowledge that your interest in this matter led me to independently explore information about lupus and the prognosis for people suffering the disease. I learned that the mortality rate for people diagnosed with Lupus has decreased in part because a larger number of people are now diagnosed, due to the recently aquired ability to diagnose less severe forms of the disease. For those suffering more severe forms, the mortality rate has decreased because the disease is sometimes controllable, but is not yet considered curable. But for a certain group of people with the disease, the prognosis for long-term survival remains poor. I believe it is compassionate to recognize that some people must face the expectaton of death, either their own or that of loved ones. Though I hold no opinion about who should say what to the person whose personal experience led to this current discussion, I find that compassion, or "suffering with" a person can involve sharing their burden with a solemn realization of the inevitable, along with perhaps expressing a hope, albeit sometimes only to become adjusted to the futility of hope, for more time to live.
>
> I don't concur with an opinion expressed elsewhere that anyone "earns" a right to discuss difficult aspects of a disease by having the disease, or by having a family member who has the disease. If that is so, we must all face death, so we have all "earned" the right to face the inevitability of death.
>
> Nor do I concur with an opinion that holds only "positive" information about a disease is compassionate in an educational forum. Part of the difficulty of facing a potentially fatal disease is confronting the inevitability of death in some cases.
>
> Having reviewed this thread about how discussion of a sometimes fatal autoimmune disorder can be compassionately discussed at this forum, I have begun to wonder why so few, if any, people suffering from aquired immune difficiency syndrome have presented here for support and education related to the mental difficulties associated with that disease.*** the issue of acquired immune difficiency syndrome is largely identified with a sexually-active, homosexual male population and a group of users of illicit drugs via intraveneous routes; additionally, populations who are not native speakers of english have been at higher risk, yet this was true 20 years ago and less so now.
the very government whose policies have been purported to be ``hypocritical,'' ``pathetic,'' and ``a joke'' in another thread is comprised of elected officials with whom poster ``so'' has repeatedly made clear are those said poster is represented by in the u.s. government.
the u.s. government does not recognize the union of gay couples in the same light of heterosexual couples (not to mention insurance issues, right to deny/affirm life support, and so forth); the u.s. government does not support the medical use of marijuana, much less the implementation of a needle exchange program, nor are drugs such as heroin and methamphetamine currently deemed anything short of schedule I (heroin) and schedule II (methamphetamine, p.o.); and the u.s government - elected by a simple majority of voters of legal voting age, active registration, and incentive to actually vote and thus hardly a majority of the u.s. population in any manner - is publicly standing tall in the three branches on a platform of so-called ``family values'' as espoused by president george w. bush; senate majority leader bill frist; and the supreme court.
the current administration would be acting in a hypocritical manner if the support needed were offered to those who contracted HIV (and, subsequently, AIDS - or not) through homosexual contact (inclusive of sodomy, illegal in many u.s. states); bisexual contact; or needle-sharing.
the u.s. government - ``so's'' electorate, and not mine - is not accurately defined as pathetic - having a capacity to move one to either compassionate or contemptuous pity or marked by sorrow or melancholy, according to my Webster's - as much as ``apathetic'' - having or showing little or no feeling or emotion or having little or no interest or concern - as far as the cohort of people infected with and/or suffering from HIV and/or AIDS; and to suggest otherwise is, in my opinion, nothing short of a sick joke. an offensive and deleterious sick joke, in my estimation.
having one's cake and eating it, too, is not a luxury afforded those who are represented by the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the current u.s. govenerment as far as HIV and AIDS is concerned (at least). ***
I am familiar with the battlefield comfort offered in the phrase "everything's going to be alright" spoken to a dying person, but for those with more time to contemplate the reality and inevitability of death, I wonder if an assertion that "everything is going to be alright" is sometimes insufficient to support their needs in the face of likely death.
>
> Further, because these diseases are increasingly controllable, recognition of the risks the diseases pose can assist those suffering from or supporting those with the disease in making intelligent either/or choices about what activities might be worthwhile or safe for them to pursue.
>
> For my part, as my time on Earth becomes shorter, I realize that avoidance of discussion of death might serve those with more time to avoid the topic than it does those of us whose time is approaching. Among those I know who have faced death at an old age or by disease, I recall that they broached the topic of death often as a way of preparing those who have more time to live for the moment when they must confront the departure of a loved one.
Posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 3:15:59
I am suggesting that government policies concerning adminstration of medical assistance for those with certain diseases is appropriate, within the rule of law and level of voluntary participation among my fellow citizens. And I hold that regardless my preference for different policies, current officials have acted within their measure of true compassion to budget billions of dollars to address the prevelance of aquired immune difficiency syndrome in the US and abroad. But another poster here has suggested that those policies are inadequate.
As administrator, you previously replied to my inquiry about the propriety of calling government policies "a joke" by asking me questions about how I feel, but then did not respond to my request for clarification about whether it is permissible to call those policies "a joke" or other terms.
Now a poster writes:
"the u.s. government ... is not accurately defined as pathetic - ... as much as ``apathetic'' - having or showing little or no feeling or emotion or having little or no interest or concern - as far as the cohort of people infected with and/or suffering from HIV and/or AIDS; and to suggest otherwise is, in my opinion, nothing short of a sick joke. an offensive and deleterious sick joke, in my estimation.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511740.html
But I am suggesting otherwise. I believe elected officials are acting in good faith and are appropriating resources according to their best judgement in service to voters that favored them as well as to the entire electorate and the entire population. I am not offering a sick joke. I realize some people would prefer more government resources be appropriated to remedy certain problems, and I share an interest in seeing different priorities. I don't consider opinions contrary to mine to be a "sick joke" nor to I consider my good faith toward those who hold contrary opinions to be either "offensive" or a "deleterious sick joke." Even if it is only one person's estimation, my estimation of the rules of this forum suggests I am not permitted to make similar statements.
My question is, is it permissible within the rules of this forum to call my assertion that the current government of the United States is legitimate in it's decisions and decision making "a sick joke" or to estimate other people's widely shared opinions as "offensive"?
Posted by JenStar on June 14, 2005, at 3:15:59
In reply to So's request for Robert Hsuing, posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 20:03:35
so,
I find it interesting that you address Dr. Bob as "Robert Hsuing" instead of "Dr. Bob" or "Dr. Hsuing." Can I ask you why that is? It seems you've adopted Lou's style of requests for Dr. Bob, but have changed the way you address him. Is there a reason for that?
Just curious,
JenStar
Posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 3:15:59
In reply to Re: So's request for Robert Hsuing » so, posted by JenStar on June 12, 2005, at 20:21:57
> so,
> I find it interesting that you address Dr. Bob as "Robert Hsuing" instead of "Dr. Bob" or "Dr. Hsuing." Can I ask you why that is? It seems you've adopted Lou's style of requests for Dr. Bob, but have changed the way you address him. Is there a reason for that?
>
>
> Just curious,
> JenStarI probably address him as Robert Hsuing instead of as Robert Hsiung because my middle finger is longer than my index finger and since it has to bend more to reach the letter keys, it doesn't reach the intended "i" key as quickly as my index finger reaches the "u" key, even though my mind might have sequenced the action in the proper order.
I don't address him as doctor because his ostensible role here is not medical, and because he has encouraged the use of less formal monikers by adopting the name "Bob." Robert Hsiung is his proper name and it is proper to address him by that name.
Posted by chemist on June 14, 2005, at 3:15:59
In reply to So's request for Robert Hsuing, posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 20:03:35
hello there, chemist here...current u.s. officials have increased federal u.s. spending in homeland defense and security 15% from 2003-2005, while flatlining or lowering budgets of other governmental agencies, inclusive of the n.i.h. and the n.s.f.
i am not suggesting that the policies are inadequate: i am writing that in my opinion, any person who supports the policies of the u.s. government that target a select number of people for discrimination due to sexual, religious, racial, or other reasons germane to the civil rights act of 1964 (at least) is being not only uncivil but shows a callous contempt for the targeted individuals (here, largely homosexual males and intravenous drug users).
the ``voluntary participation'' of your ``fellow citizens'' must be in keeping with the christian-based, bible-derived tenets upon which the u.s. government relies in estimating whether or not your fellow citizens have a disease that is worth treatment. if homosexuality is not ``right,'' how can any associated maladies warrant attention? after all, approved gay marriage licenses are routinely overturned by higher courts, and gay marriage does not correlate with contracting HIV/AIDS. defending the marriage of church and state by the bush administration correlates with discrimination and increased mortality in a targeted minority.
further: the electoral college is an all-or-nothing mandate with the exception of two (2) states, nebraska and maine, neither of which has been a swing state in any election. period. george w. bush was not elected predident of the u.s. by a simple majority the first term, and was elected the second time due to the continued life of the antiquated (and 96% unicameral) electoral colleges in each state.
i hope my stance is clear. all the best, chemist
> I am suggesting that government policies concerning adminstration of medical assistance for those with certain diseases is appropriate, within the rule of law and level of voluntary participation among my fellow citizens. And I hold that regardless my preference for different policies, current officials have acted within their measure of true compassion to budget billions of dollars to address the prevelance of aquired immune difficiency syndrome in the US and abroad. But another poster here has suggested that those policies are inadequate.
>
> As administrator, you previously replied to my inquiry about the propriety of calling government policies "a joke" by asking me questions about how I feel, but then did not respond to my request for clarification about whether it is permissible to call those policies "a joke" or other terms.
>
> Now a poster writes:
>
> "the u.s. government ... is not accurately defined as pathetic - ... as much as ``apathetic'' - having or showing little or no feeling or emotion or having little or no interest or concern - as far as the cohort of people infected with and/or suffering from HIV and/or AIDS; and to suggest otherwise is, in my opinion, nothing short of a sick joke. an offensive and deleterious sick joke, in my estimation.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511740.html
>
> But I am suggesting otherwise. I believe elected officials are acting in good faith and are appropriating resources according to their best judgement in service to voters that favored them as well as to the entire electorate and the entire population. I am not offering a sick joke. I realize some people would prefer more government resources be appropriated to remedy certain problems, and I share an interest in seeing different priorities. I don't consider opinions contrary to mine to be a "sick joke" nor to I consider my good faith toward those who hold contrary opinions to be either "offensive" or a "deleterious sick joke." Even if it is only one person's estimation, my estimation of the rules of this forum suggests I am not permitted to make similar statements.
>
> My question is, is it permissible within the rules of this forum to call my assertion that the current government of the United States is legitimate in it's decisions and decision making "a sick joke" or to estimate other people's widely shared opinions as "offensive"?
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 23:00:02
In reply to addendum, posted by chemist on June 12, 2005, at 21:01:03
> in my opinion, any person who supports the policies of the u.s. government that target a select number of people ... is being not only uncivil but shows a callous contempt for the targeted individuals
>
> the ``voluntary participation'' of your ``fellow citizens'' must be in keeping with ... christian-based, bible-derived tenets
>
> i hope my stance is clear.It's clear! But could you please not post aspects of it that could lead others to feel accused or put down or jump to conclusions about others?
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by chemist on June 15, 2005, at 3:49:07
In reply to Re: please be civil » chemist, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 23:00:02
> > in my opinion, any person who supports the policies of the u.s. government that target a select number of people ... is being not only uncivil but shows a callous contempt for the targeted individuals
> >
> > the ``voluntary participation'' of your ``fellow citizens'' must be in keeping with ... christian-based, bible-derived tenets
> >
> > i hope my stance is clear.
>
> It's clear! But could you please not post aspects of it that could lead others to feel accused or put down or jump to conclusions about others?
>
> If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bobhello there, message received and understood...thank you for taking the time...best, tjm
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 15, 2005, at 21:08:56
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by chemist on June 15, 2005, at 3:49:07
Posted by Jakeman on June 28, 2005, at 21:14:52
In reply to Re: please be civil » chemist, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 23:00:02
I FEEL that the president's speech tonight was an insult to my intelligence, much of it contrary to published evidence. I BELIEVE that the invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to to with decreasing terrorist threats on America, and I BELIEVE that the Iraqi war has made this country less secure. This is submitted to not stir debate but to just state an opinion because of my concern for people and friends who are affected by this war. Please accept my apologies if my statements offends you.
Respectfully, Jake 6-28-05
Posted by Jakeman on June 29, 2005, at 22:04:22
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Jakeman on June 28, 2005, at 21:14:52
I meant to make this post under a different title such as:
"Bush's Speech."
> I FEEL that the president's speech tonight was an insult to my intelligence, much of it contrary to published evidence. I BELIEVE that the invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to to with decreasing terrorist threats on America, and I BELIEVE that the Iraqi war has made this country less secure. This is submitted to not stir debate but to just state an opinion because of my concern for people and friends who are affected by this war. Please accept my apologies if my statements offends you.
>
> Respectfully, Jake 6-28-05
Posted by Declan on August 6, 2005, at 15:33:01
In reply to Re: please be civil, posted by Jakeman on June 28, 2005, at 21:14:52
I've been chronically offended by this sort of stuff for years now, but I should be grateful I'm not one of the 10 (?) million people that have been killed in the wars the US has been involved in to protect freedom (or whatever) since WW2.
You just don't want to live between empires.
This is the politics board, right Jake?
Declan
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.