Apparently, Governor Sarah Palin is not familiar with this old adage. Not only did she have nothing nice to say about Barack Obama and Joe Biden, she pretty much had nothing to say at all. Well, that's not entirely true - but, then again, neither was Gov. Palin's speech. Since the things I was yelling at my television would get me a righteous scolding here at Brushfires, in the spirit of the aforementioned saying, I will be sparing in my comments about the speech.
When you dismiss and disparage "Community Organizers", you are disrespecting democracy at it's purest. Change comes from the people, the grass roots, and communities acting together to make life better. I found her put downs, and snide asides to be beneath the office to which she aspires. Watching the crowd reaction, I am even less optimistic that the great divide in this country can be healed. (Sigh...)
Fortunately, I am saved from having to list and denounce Gov. Palin's lies, the good folks at the AP have done it for me (http://pantagraph.com/articles/2008/09/04/news/doc48bfd1f453ce5318632211.txt).
Here's something interesting you may or may not be aware of: http://www.washingtonindependent.com/3671/the-reform-candidate . Scroll down to the comments section from this Washington Independent article about Gov. Palin, and read the testimonial of Anne Kilkenny. I've heard a lot of this confirmed by Randi Rhodes today, from various newspaper articles written in the last few months, so I'm willing to give Ms. Kilkenny the benefit of the doubt, especially when you read what another Wasillan (?) says further down in the comments. Sometimes, your arguments are best supported by those who choose to oppose you.
Note: I love the blog, and want to do my best at this, but there are lengths to which I am not willing to go. I will read John McCain's speech & comment later. I don't think my poor cats can stand their mother shouting at the tv two nights in a row. ;-)
98 comments:
I really want to like Sarah Palin. So much of what she said was at best skewed, and in many cases, completely untrue. Like that Bridge to Nowhere thing. As the famous saying goes, she was for it before she was against it.
I sat there watching and thinking "democrats aren't this mean." And Mitt Romney's speech. Holy shit. That guy is just a nutty nutty freak.
But that's the thing - we're gracious and they win. And all the speeches last night about how screwed up America is and how it's being ruined by the liberals in the beltway...have they completely forgotten that they've been in charge for the past 8 years?
If the repubs win this time, the fix is in. I know they've been cheating, I'm just not sure how.
I listened to McCain last night and found myself telling my radio the exact same thing suza said. It's meaningless to talk about "change" when you are the spokesperson for the very party who has caused everything that needs to be changed. And the Republican party still doesn't admit that it is on the wrong course, in fact quite the opposite. McCain says he 'will name names' and 'we will know who these people are' and yet not once in his speech did he say 'Bush and Cheney have crippled this nation with powerlust and greed' or anything like that. What the Republicans have done is oh so typical of their mindset-- they have seen what the Democrats have and what gives them enthusiasm, and they are attempting to steal it. Sad. But so obvious. I usually turn the radio off after hearing the speech because the rest is just speculation and hype. I didn't last night and regret it. All the talk about crowd reaction is meaningless, as it was at the DNC. They were both audiences friendly to the message. People cheer at Klan rallies and at megachurches. Sadly, in America, religion and nationalism plague common sense and decency. I'm holding out hope, not so much for 'change', but for respite from wanton destruction of our supposed ideals, not to mention life in places such as Iraq. But I'm also readying myself for the worst. Seeing W elected to two terms convinced me that anything is possible in American politics... which is why I still have hope. :)
You guys are needlessly worrying, I think. You're both right, of course, and anyone with an ounce of common sense will see it too.
What I worry about more than anything is how the media will manipulate the race.
Can we trust them to not be motivated by corporate greed?
Gina - I think they are being manipulated by themselves! The charge of sexism really stung (as it should have) and so now they are FAWNING over Sarah like a bunch of nerdy schoolboys...almost as if to say "we don't hate all women, just Hillary Clinton!"
I hope you're right, gina. In the end, I think for most Americans, it comes down to taxes. We portend to being a society, but in the end, we're a collective of individuals who fear the concept of a collective. Gas is cheaper here than in Europe, and besides, anyone who owns a vehicle to put gas into is by world standards already wealthy, and still, we demand to have more in our bank accounts and accept that kids in our own neighborhood go hungry at school to make it happen. Cloaking our societal failures in chants of 'USA! USA!' or 'god bless Americas' rings more hollow on a daily basis. It really is true to me that the division between Democrats and Republicans is a measure of racism, Obama aside. Only racism could account for this country's acceptance of an underclass such as we have it. There are poor whites, and the Democrats are not angels, but there are more poor minorities, and the Republicans run on a me-first platform, regardless of the nationalistic spin. To call Democrats 'Socialists' is extreme, not that I'm opposed to Socialism. But seriously, is it really so un-American to see a brother or sister in need and to hand them a bit of the surplus most of us enjoy? Yes, it is our's, not their's. And that's the whole point of being an American, or so I was raised to believe. Schools, roads, health clinics, playgrounds, human services for human beings-- all of these things cost money and it has to come from those who are a part of the society these things benefit. There are villages in the world where some consider themselves lucky to gather as a community around a common static filled radio, while in the States, most of us sit in front of our own personal color televisions and grumble about how our government, of us, by us, and for us, wants us to contribute to our mutual success.
But I hope you're right, gina.
Sorry, had to fix a typo.
I think I've mentioned that I have some experience with Alaska (coincidentally, both with the state government and with Wassilla, but not with Ms. Palin). Ms. Kilkenny's comment on the blog JMF recommended rings true to me. I doubt there are many residents of Wassilla who are as articulate as Ms. Kilkenny seems to be (although Ms. Palin's parents probably are). Wassilla has changed since I was last there, in the early 90s; but I also saw it quite closely back in the mid-70s. I have a good sense of the culture there, during the time Ms. Palin was growing up. Very oddly isolated place.
(Funny provincial note in the Kilkenny post: She complains not only about the big box stores Palin brought to town, but also about their "unconnected parking lots." Anyone who has lived through an Anchorage winter knows how valuable connected parking lots are. All over town, you can navigate from shopping center to shopping center without getting back on the snowy, icy main streets. Makes searching for an address a lot safer.)
Anyway, I very much liked the Kilkenny post JMF linked to.
lefty - but I like your typos! (Founding Farter's....tee-hee!)
One thing I don't think Gov. Palin gets enough credit for is all that she has done for entrepreneurs in Alaska. Huh? Meth labs & dealers aren't considered Small Businesses? But, it's become a thriving industry in Wasilla - 42 meth labs, or 1 for every 200 people! Sounds to me like business is booming!
(Sorry, I'll go sit in the corner until I can comment without snark...)
Lefty, would it be fair to characterize Alaska as "Texas North?" It seems that way to me: ranchers, oil men, wide-open spaces, conservative politics. I could be off base, as I've never been there...
WT -- I've visited Texas a few times and enjoyed myself greatly. Texas reminds me of California in many ways -- the size, the natural wealth, the multinational cultural complexity side by side with old line white conservatives in the farming land. They have more oil in Tex. and we have more Hollywood here. But the high-tech industries are big in Tex., too (TI only the most famous, I guess.) And don't forget we sent both Nixon and Reagan off to two terms in the WHouse (well, almost two for Tricky D.) Anyway, that's just my superficial take on Texas. I don't know it well.
Alaska, well, that's another story. One of the wilderness cranks I got to know well in Alaska had moved there because Montana got too crowded for him -- by 1960.
Texas was just another cesspool of sin and corruption to him. He was extreme, but many other Alaskans I know shared a bit of that (I don't know what else to call it right now) weird isolationist ideal.
People like that, I believe, are suckers for demagogic political con men and women.
TooSense: Do you know why I think the Dems are going to win this year? Because the GOP has probably lost the conservative Catholic vote. That vote determined the last election, I think. Bush blew it with them. I lump myself into that group. I voted for Bush based on the abortion issue. Then 9/11 happened and it gave me another reason. At the time, 9/11 freaked me out. I just wanted security, and he seemed like the person to give it to me. It seemed like a just war. If you remember, the Pope was against it, but many of us felt that because he wasn't in America, that it didn't concern him. Bush promised us everything we thought was important. Conservative Catholics are big on social justice, but also believe that it is far better to teach a man to fish, rather than give him one fish. Personal responsibility.
That's the problem with socialism as I see it. To me it seems it's more about keeping bureaucrats nice and fat, than about really helping people become financially independent. I point to the government in S.F. as an example of socialistic ideas run a muck.Horrors.
Anyway, to get back to just how Bush and the GOP lost my vote and trust. It all started with Terry Schiavo. I mean, he tried to save her, but didn't try hard enough in my book. If I'm president of the U.S.,I march into her room and give the woman a glass of water, not let her suffer and die of thirst. I also use my power to rally the troops and put my money where my mouth is about the whole compassionate conservatism mantra. Strike one. Where was John McCain during all of this, by the way?
Also, the supreme court nomination that Bush made. His first selection was a pro-choice woman. Conservatives had to put up a major stink to get the one he finally did nominate. Strike Two. Then the interest rate changes, and escalating gas prices and the collapse of the economy.He does have some control over these things, doesn't he? Strike three.
And then this never-ending, discombobulated war. Strike four.
Again, where is John McCain on this one? Oh, yes, we can look forward to another 100 years. How fun.
I know that I said Obama seems like an empty suit. I still do. He gives great speeches and all, but really, does anyone really concerned with equal justice for all think he means it when abortion is concerned? We're all equal? We're only equal in his eyes as long as someone else determines our life has value. Kinda sounds too much like slavery to me. If you believe that life begins at the moment of conception and has intrinsic value from that point on, his words just sound like fancy rhetoric.
This election is not about abortion anymore, I think. It's about taking care of the living and fixing the things that are within our grasp to fix right now. Over-turning Roe vs Wade is not an easy battle...one that I don't think can be fixed anytime too soon. For some of us, I think it's a matter of carefully weighing things and prioritizing.
One thing you may find reassuring. Although I have been wrong on assessing situations in my life and this time it may be a first, one thing I've never been wrong on--except for a protest vote that I can't even remember who I voted for--is voting for a winning candidate...ever.
gina - that's some voting record! Being a Liberal of the bleeding heart variety, the candidate I like in the primaries never lasts until we vote in CA! I don't know how old you are, but can I extrapolate from your statement that you voted for Bill Clinton?
My friend (who grew up in WY) and I were talking about the west, and westerners, and cowboys (we both grew up in rural areas where we ran into men who considered themselves as such - even here in CA, there are cowboys, yessiree).
So, let's get this straight. Cowboys, although venerated in the arts and movies and songs and the like are pretty much weird loners. They're the guys who don't have great social skills. There is a reason they spend a lot of their time with non-speaking animals. They have a lot of problems, alcoholism is a big one, but also a lot of anti-social behavior.
These same guys, the ones who moved out to CA in the late 1800s, are the same ones who move to Alaska now. It's the attraction of the wide open spaces and not very many people - and perhaps not much law.
You know what they say about Alaska..."The odds are good, but the goods are odd."
I don't want to insult anyone from Alaska, certainly there are regular people there, just as there are in SF and WY. Regular people make the world go 'round.
But the anti-social weirdos...the ones who bail on their east coast families and go to live in the west (like the nut job from "Into the Wild" and "Grizzly Man"), those are the guys who give us all a bad name. All of us westerners.
Nature is not Disneyland, but these somewhat disturbed men (and they are always men) seem to think that nature will take care of them and protect them, when, in reality, men have been fighting against nature for at least thousands of years.
uh oh...did I go off topic again? Damn. Those Into the Wild guys piss me off. I have an inherent distrust of non-westerners. LOL. I guess I just proved my own theory, huh? Weird, anti-social behavior.
:)
Suza, I don't think that men who prefer their own company are to be feared. It's the political animals that crave power over other men that are the problem. That's who I define as rightwingers. It has nothing to do with one's economic/political philosophy and everything to do with what they are willing to do to get what they want. And it isn't only men we need to be concerned about. We are only a few stolen votes and a stroke away from having Serial Mom as our npresident.
Insert here my usual opening typo or solecism (e.g., "I enjoyed myself greatly" bet you did, big guy).
I admire people who keep two opposing ideals in mind and pursue both toward a synthesis. "Into the wild" types (men and women, and I know some such women) are great if they also bring equal energy to social and political action (and I know some who do).
It's the cranks who fall prey to the power hungry. Sarah Palin won her first race for mayor of Wasilla because she got 651 votes TOTAL (population then, apparently, about 6,000.) When she ran for re-election, she won with 909 TOTAL. (City had grown.) Then when she ran for governor, she tapped into the crank vote statewide. Suddenly the bright talented narrow minded fascist from Wasilla had a future.
She's both incompetent and unprincipled. May she have her Admiral Stockdale moment. If the GOP prevents that with careful preparation, this country may be in danger.
I did vote for Clinton the first time. Second Clinton election was my protest vote. Something about not getting that middle-class tax-break and repaired health care system upset me.
Even though I was not old enough to legally vote for Carter, I would have voted for him.
By the way. I'm a Westerner through and through. Not ashamed of it, either. None of my ancestors were crazed loners, just very independent thinkers.
gina, I'm all for teaching a man to fish instead of giving him one. But it's a big, imperfect world, and some people suck at fishing. Some people can't even hold a rod. Some people can't even grasp the concept that water is where you find fish. Some people need to have the hook baited, the line cast, the fish reeled in, scaled, cooked, cut and fed to them. These people are our fellows. This is what humans do, if and when they can. Speaking of catholics, this is what Jesus oozed, quite literally in example to us all. One doesn't have to believe in the magic that allegedly accompanied that to understand the spirit of it. So fishing unrewarded for another might not get me an eternity in the presence of the lord, or a roomful of virgins, but I get that it feels right. The funny thing about America is that the more status you have, the more you need. I think there's some poetic justice and a lesson in that, regardless of the downward spiral it signals.
Life, TooSense, has a way of teaching us the very lessons some of us need to learn.
It's interesting, TooSense, that you can't seem to think that the most helpless and voiceless of us all don't deserve the same treatment that you are willing to want to extend to the living souls that can have a governmental number attached to them. Have you ever asked yourself why? Despite what you seemed to have convinced yourself of, at the moment of conception, that little organism is very much alive.
On a different note, how do you feel about euthanasia?
One more thing. Catholics that follow the true teachings of Christ are called "Catholics", the rest are called "catholics".
I think they're much more stylish than american kids. Ba-dum-boomp!
~
I don't believe in taking a life that isn't my own. I claim the right to take my own, or to provide instruction for ending it, should I be unable to do it myself in the face of the inability to continue living what I consider to be a proper life. I respect others' wishes along the same lines. I hope I'm never in the situation to have to make that decision lacking clarity, although, you're right, life is full of such moments. I understand and appreciate your conviction regarding when life begins, as well as your befuddlement at my seeming dismissal of 'the most helpless and voiceless'. This is not a reconcilable issue, I realize that. You're a catholic (it's true I am selective with capital letters, I afford the same, even to those who use them in series)-- many catholics take the pope's opinion on contraception religiously. In their view, sperm is life, and must, within narrowly defined parameters, go where and do what it will. Likewise the egg. I believe this is simply a political philosophy based on the tendency for majorities (or mobs, depending on societal structure) to get their way. Insurance, in other words, of power. The line, even among catholics, is drawn in different places. Too many of these sorts of distinctions remind me of the Dire Straits song that says, 'Two men say they're Jesus/ One of them must be wrong/ There's a protest singer/ He's singing a protest song.' The writer may not have intended the juxtaposition in this way, but I say perhaps both men are wrong, and I recognize that the singer implores the audience to adopt his morality, yet isn't a revolutionary utilizing force or threats. This is key to my worldview. Abortion is a thorny issue. We don't know what experience, if any, we feel beyond our death. We don't know what experience, if any, we feel before our conception. Science is unclear when the life threshold is crossed, from conception to birth. There is history, but our existence for most of it is questionable. The distant future is remote enough for many not even to consider it in decision making, beyond immediate threat. What we do know, is that birth is a personal act, involving one mother. It's the "external" manifestation of what was, up to that moment, "internal". What these concepts really mean is for philosophers to debate. But I believe that each of us, given our limited understanding of them, claims the right to determine when the threshold is crossed within us. We know the "external" as beings with, and yet apart from us, and again, the crossing of the thresholds is not for us to determine in opposition to their will. In the case of euthanasia, it is the heavy burden of loved ones to understand that will and potentially act on it. It's another discussion, but this is why gay marriage is so fundamental to humanists. Do I have all the answers? No. But yes, gina, I've asked myself why.
TooSense; I'm not quite sure what you meant by that comment about some group being more stylish than american kids, but that's not very hard to do...they're mostly slobbish in dress. I always put my children in uniforms. Maybe you meant American kids are more stylish? I'm truly befuddled by this one. Did you mean westerners? Or Westerners? Because I'm a Westerner, and I can definitely say that I'm more stylish than american kids. Not only that, but as an Italian alsoimgcoowc, not an italian, I'm better lookin', too.
Gina, you asked TooSense what he thought of euthanasia (youth in Asia). It's an old joke that doesn't work when you read it.
What do people think about the Republican platform on abortion? McCain apparently had no input whatsoever, as they have taken the extreme position that even in a case of rape or incest, a woman must give birth. This is frightening on so many levels. Basically it allows sexual predators to propagate the species.
The argument for their side is that the "baby" is innocent and therefore must not be "murdered". Hogwash, the sperm that fertilized the egg is carrying defective genes. It was stone cold guilty before conception.
That was just an old, dumb joke about the youth in Asia. I have to admit that I don't know what an 'Italian alsoimgcoowc' is.
Sorry, Yogi... bit of overlap there.
Yogi...in case of forceable incest or rape, abortion should remain an option. Although it doesn't seem fair to take an innocent life, the woman or girl did not consent to the act. Pregnancy can be life-threatening. It does not seem fair to force a woman or girl to put her life at risk take responsibilty for the result of an act she did not consent to.
Also, don't confuse euthanasia with eugenics...'cause it's sure sounding like you have.
Mr.TooSense: Youth in Asia jokes go right over my head--so save them for more savy people.
And as far as the meaning of 'alsoimgcoowc' it's vord verification for 'be quiet, you talk entirely TooMuch, TooSense'
Excuse me...I can't spell either. Save your lame jokes for more savvy people.
euthenasia...wow, we've traveled from the topic again...but that's ok.
Seriously, after watching my sister's loooong struggle with lymphoma (which is a disease that is blind to lifestyle), I have to say that I am pretty much able to support people who would wish to end the artifically prolonged life that modern medicine affords us. Not that sis was ever in that situation - she always had a fighting chance (although at one point the doctor told us her chances of waking up again were between 1 in 10 and 1 in 100 - that was very painful).
She fought, as I think most people with young families would do. And when she got too tired and too sick to fight, she gave up. Not everyone has that option though. We could have kept her alive on life support for much longer as her organs shut down, one by one. Or maybe she would have come out of it again and follow the one step forward, two steps back progress of her disease.
Don't get me wrong, I want her around. I miss her more and more every day. It kills me that her daughters won't ever know how truly awesome she was. But she suffered. We all did. Maybe she suffered more than any one person should have to suffer, knowing all that stands between them and the relative ease of death is determination, a respirator and a feeding tube.
Like abortion, I can't make that decision for other people. I don't want to sentence someone to a half-life or a life of enduring misery and loss of function, loss of privacy, nor would I want to sentence their families to the pity, agony, and horrors that come along with caring for a loved one who can no longer care for themselves.
We should make these determinations with an understanding of the situation. It's never black and white, right and wrong. Quality of life is much more complex than independent breathing and brain activity.
Suza: I suppose if there was money involved that would change things? Or maybe an attempted murder to cover-up? Or maybe a new girlfriend to marry?
Terry Schaivo's family wanted to keep her alive. They proved that she showed signs of wanting to live. They were Catholics and raised her to believe that euthanasia was wrong. There was some question about her injury that perhaps her husband had tried and failed to kill her. There was money involved that he would get, and also a new love complete with two new children from that relationship. Who's quality of life are we talking about? His or her's?
Our government essentially killed Terry Schaivo in the cruelest way possible.
Was it something I said?
gina - the true tragedy of the Schiavo case is that we should have never known her name. That was a private family matter. If her husband had wanted to be rid of her, he could have divorced her and been done with her care. He cared for her for YEARS before he finally admitted to himself that there was no hope. The reason he didn't divorce her to be with his new love, was that he knew his parents would go against what he believed to be Terry's wishes, and keep her alive. If there had been any money, I'm sure it had long been drained by the medical community you seem to hold in such suspicion.
It was a travesty what the Republican Congress did - and a moment that is a blight on our nation. Sure, Bill Frist was able to diagnose her from a videotape, but I prefer to believe her doctors.
Suza; what a tragedy about your sister and for your family. I'm so sorry.Your story is exactly why euthanasia should not be taken lightly. There are so many factors to consider, so many things that can be easily over-looked, that it is a serious issue.
On the Schiavo case, she responded to her family.Michael didn't want her, he could have divorced her and wouldn't.His brother supported him, I heard no mention of anyone in his family caring. She was put in a facility that sided with the husband and couldn't be removed. There were other doctor's from her family that thought that she made progress and could make more progress given the right treatment and care. Her husband refused. By all appearances, he wanted her dead and used the excuse that she said she said she rather die than be kept alive. There was no written evidence, only what he said she said. I believe her death was about politics, not about good medicine.
I believe her death was about politics and establishing law more than anything.
In my family we've had doctors,and I have relatives in the medical field now. Medicine used to be about not harming life, not bringing about its demise. Read the Hippocratic Oath before it was changed. I beleive it changed in conjunction with our country's move towards socialism.
It's easier to do away with people if you change the value of life and standards of care.
Wouldn't you say our country is moving towards socialized medicine?
It's a troubling thought, that the government can decide when and how long we can live. When I think of our generation, and how many of us have no children, I worry. Who will be making those decisions about our life when we are too old and feeble to make them for ourselves? It won't be that people that love us the most, it will be the people that find us the most burdensome.
TooSense: I was just teasing you. Talk all you want...I'm not in charge. Just be nice to me--I'm no editor and my skills at it are quite sucky.
Oh, yes. Ferret--I apologize for my lame writing skills. I'm ruining your blog and discrediting myself. Can't you put a grammar check on this thing and make the box bigger? It's so hard to write in with all the scrolling involved.
gina - this isn't an English class. It's the quality of your thought that is valued by me, not your spelling or syntax. I'm not sure I can make those additions - goodness knows, I'd love a spellcheck feature.
Do you feel the same about our socialized fire and police departments? Do you think those should be privatized? How about our socialized roads...? Socialized medicine is not what it has been portrayed by the conservatives - it works extraordinarily well in Europe & Canada. Sure you pay higher taxes, but a serious illness or injury will not cause catastrope for your family. Even with private insurance, there are deductibles, maximums, etc. that can wipe a family's savings out. I think that single payer or universal health care is necessary for the future of our country. Health care should be a right for all, not a privilege for the few.
Oh, and gina - I don't think the size of my box is a proper subject for discussion on this blog. (tee-hee!)
"On the Schiavo case, she responded to her family.Michael didn't want her, he could have divorced her and wouldn't.His brother supported him, I heard no mention of anyone in his family caring. She was put in a facility that sided with the husband and couldn't be removed. There were other doctor's from her family that thought that she made progress and could make more progress given the right treatment and care. Her husband refused. By all appearances, he wanted her dead and used the excuse that she said she said she rather die than be kept alive. There was no written evidence, only what he said she said. I believe her death was about politics, not about good medicine. "
You know Gina, there was a time that I probably would have agreed with you that her husband wanted her dead and the decision was political. But when Terry married her husband she gave him the right to make medical decisions for her. My sister did the same thing, in writing. I was the alternate. At the time I think I would have done anything to keep her alive (including putting her on a respirator, which was something she adamantly did not want).
Our parents love us in a way that no one else can or will. I think it makes them a little blind. Terry didn't have any quality of life, and from what I understand the autopsy showed that her brain was basically mush. Honestly, mush. I did follow that case fairly closely at the time because it did have similarities to my sister's.
The fight that occured, the act of congress, all that was a stupid waste of time. The decision belonged to the person she put her faith in when she was well, her husband.
To me it seems almost callous to look at someone who has so little quality of life and to continue to keep them alive for your selfish reasons. I'm sure her parents didn't think they were being selfish, but they were. They were never going to have their daughter back. My sister was tired as hell. Bottom line, most of us wouldn't choose to live like that once we know what it really entails. It's 24x7 care, huge emotional and financial tolls on everyone, adult diapers, ostomy bags, feeding tubes, inflamed livers, bed sores, and desperately trying to see your loved one in a shell that only sort of looks like them.
The last thing my sister said to me was to ask me if she was in the ICU. When I answered yes, she said "shit."
I know Terry's parents loved her, but I do think they were being selfish. I know because I felt very much the same way. Maybe I'm just projecting onto them. At the time I thought my sister's husband was making the wrong decision. Now I don't think so. It was a tough decision to make. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
oh yeah, I also wanted to say that we are at a weird time in our technological advancement. We can keep people alive (like Terry Schiavo and my sister) who would under circumstances at any other point in time, not have made it.
But just because we can keep them breathing and give them nutrition, does that automatically mean that we should?
If socialized medicine (which I agree with FH, is a right, not a privlege) means that no one has to live in bed on a feeding tube with zero brain activity, then I'd have to be in favor of it.
We have to work with the medical skills that we have currently available, but we also have to be aware that part of being a human being is retaining your dignity. There is nothing dignified in having someone else change your poopy pants and getting nutrition from a tube. There is nothing dignified in not being able to communicate with your loved ones and having to be turned every 12 hours to prevent bed sores. Really, who would want to live like that? It's not just about a heartbeat.
Thank you Ferret.Spell check is on here,it just doesn't catch everything. And you're right, the size of your box is not to be questioned--at least by me. TooSense, on the other hand, seems like the perfect candidate.
Suza. I believe that our medical system does need fixing. I've been in a position of having to purchase private insurance, and at the time caused us more grief than it was worth. We basically had to purchase something we couldn't afford, and because the deductibles were so high, we ended up having to pay for everything anyway. Thus my vote for the Clinton presidency.
Anyway, socialized medicine is good in theory, I'm not so sure about the reality of it. Sounds like a lot of inefficiency to me. I'm not so sure it works as well as we've been led to believe in Europe and Canada. Socialism seems like a system too ripe for corruption. I don't think our country was meant to be a socialistic system. It just makes me think that we'll just replace one form of aristocracy with another. Again, I point to the government of S.F. Yuck. Somewhere there has to be a way for there to be a happy medium. If we could just get people to care less about their pocketbooks, and more about the common good, I suppose socialism could work. My suspicious mind is probably due to the fact that I read Ayn Rand's Anthem one too many times as a kid, when I probably should have been reading Shakespeare like the illustrious Mr. LaSalle.
One more thought about euthanasia.
You said:
There is nothing dignified in having someone else change your poopy pants and getting nutrition from a tube. There is nothing dignified in not being able to communicate with your loved ones and having to be turned every 12 hours to prevent bed sores.
You realize what you also just described, don't you?
I think you are talking about babies...actually, you have to pick up babies more than every 12 hours and you typically feed them, but not through a tube. Babies don't typically get bed sores that become infected and cause death. And babies do communicate through crying and facial expressions, which is not something that Terry Schiavo could do.
New picture, huh? You look like a different person...very 60's retro.
Babies--I've lost count of how many I 've had, but I think it's almost 20, are completely helpless and dependent upon others for everything. If you look at it from that perspective, it's a very undignified position to be in. It's kinda funny--we come into this world pretty much the we leave. Maybe my point of view is that even the undignified deserve protection against harm, because, really there is no absolute way to determine who deserves to live more than anyone else. Whose standards to we use? Yours, mine, someone else's? At some point, we have to have a standard where no line is crossed. We used to have that standard, until the Hippocratic Oath was changed--conveniently in time for abortion and everything else that has followed along with it. Look at where we are now, Suza. We use tax-payer money to create life just to destroy it in order to cure illness. And, people profit from it in a very big way.
We now treat life as a commodity to used and exploited however we see fit. That is just plain creepy.
ginag, I want to respond to your question about the beginning of life. For me, it is not a question that is susceptible of an absolute answer. I can very much understand the viewpoint of someone who says life begins at conception. I can also very much understand the viewpoint of someone who says life begins at viability. Both are objective markers, and solid arguments could be made for both of them. A law could be rationally justified on either basis. Where I run into an issue from a legal point of view is when people start talking about the soul. There is no objective evidence for or against the existence of the soul. Its existence is a matter of faith. When we come down to matters of faith, my view is that any attempt to incorporate a religious precept into law runs afoul of the Constitutional prohibition against the establishment of a state religion. The current rationale for abortion laws in our country comes from the Supreme Court's weighing of the interests of the mother versus the interest of the potential person, with the potential person acquiring more rights as it approaches birth. I think the Court's approach is as reasonable as could be expected given the different viewpoints and legal arguments that have been made.
my new picture is newer. The first one I picked because my hair is so curly (after being intermittantly rained on in Rome all day) and this new one is from a couple of months ago. The hairdresser did my hair particularly nicely (and straight, which I can never get it to do) so I had Mr. Suza take a picture for future reference.
but...babies don't require lift teams to move them around. babies brains are being formed, not losing functionality. I see the point you are making, but you can't compare a baby, who will naturally progress to independence to an adult who has known independence and must now endure major loss of functionality.
Again, I'm not saying that I would want someone to make that decision for me, and I don't want to make it for anyone else. But even the Pope says that it is not suicide to refuse "extraordinary" medical intervention. In my sister's case, her priest (at the urging of her husband) told her that it would be ok to forego dialysis as an "extraordinary" procedure. No one else agreed and she had dialysis until the last day of her life.
I guess my point is that every case is different and the sanctity of life is violated in a number of ways. Like I said before, just because we can keep someone alive on machines doesn't mean that we should.
Objection dsgonzale6!
http://tinyurl.com/5uwgxe
Not to beat a dead horse, viability is a matter of opinion. If food weren't put in front of my children, they'd starve. The youngest is eight. They'd freeze to death in the winter if someone didn't cloth them or give them shelter. My oldest,18, still lives at home and is dependent.
What about when we're ill? Depending on the illness, our survivability depends on the care of others. I just don't see how the logic of viability or inviability is even a considered argument. The fact is, we're all inter-dependent upon each other in all sorts of ways.
And soul? What's that got to do with anything? We're either biologically alive or we ain't. I mean, if a three-day old embryo isn't alive, it's certainly not dead, is it? 'Cause if it were dead, it would self-abort, right? What is the act of abortion? It's putting an end to something living.
TooSense--you're TooCute.
gina, viability is not just a matter of opinion. What you're talking about is something different, when you talk about interdependence. That's not viability, that's society. When it comes down to it, as I said, there are reasonable arguments for conception and viability. But until the fetus is able to live on its own, it's really just part of the mother--living, but not a separate being. Biologically speaking, without the mother, the fetus is without any basis for survival. You may believe that the mother thus has an obligation to bring the fetus to term, but there's no objective biological mandate for the mother to do that beyond procreation. I'm not trying to minimize the way you feel about this issue, I'm just pointing out that there are other viewpoints, and that the Roe v. Wade approach is an attempt to balance those viewpoints and the respective rights of the mother and fetus (potential human).
Oh, really dsg? So you'rr telling me that if your food supply was cut-off, along with everything else you depend on other people for, you'd survive all by yourself? Just what would you eat? Could you find potable water? Or would you just drink whatever you found available and hope for the best? And if you happened to eat or drink something that made you so ill that you became dehydrated and needed medical attention,you'd somehow survive it all by yourself? How would you keep yourself warm while you were sick--in that house you built all by yourself, covered with blankets and clothing you made all by yourself? Warmed by gas or electricity you invented and supplied to yourself? You must be God or something. I think Stanford should clone you...you'd solve all of California's financial ills.
I have a question for you dsg. You seem like an intelligent, educated man. Very lawyerly.
Here it is: We all know what sorry shape our country is in. It almost seems hopeless that things will ever be set right again. If one person can make all the difference in the outcome of everyone's life--George Bush, for example--what do you suppose the chances are that in the 44 million aborted Americans since Roe vs Wade was passed, that one of them could have been at the right place or contributed something that would have changed the outcome of the election, or even the direction of George Bush's life?
gina - as you are our only pro-life voice here at Brushfires, I am loathe to appear to be piling on. That said, why limit it just to the 40 million aborted since Roe was decided? Why not the 40 million aborted before?
You often seem to take the argument to an extreme place - when dsg discusses viability, and the ability of an infant to live outside the womb, I think that is generally accepted to mean the lungs are developed to such an extent that the child can breathe, the heart can beat sufficiently to move blood throughout the circulatory system, etc. He' not talking about withholding food, which - if you'll excuse me - is taking the argument to a rather ridiculous place. There is a period of gestation that is necessary before a fetus can live outside of the womb...or becomes 'viable'.
I guess the question to consider is what do you personally consider quality of life? If you feel that is achieved by long term mechanical ventilation and feeding tubes (which render you unable to speak and typically are administered under sedation), then that is your choice. It's harder for me since I've actually been there, spending the nights in an ICU and trying to communicate with an unresponsive loved one, to say that I consider that quality. I personally wouldn't want that unless there was hope of recovery.
Also, the 44 million abortions number that you quote includes spontaneous abortions that are not medically induced. It's a very misleading figure. It also ignores the fact that, as I said before, women have been practicing abortion since they figure out how and some women will continue to do so no matter the consequences.
I've never heard of a viable fetus being aborted. There is no reason to do so. If the mother's life is in danger and a fetus is more than 35 weeks, the baby can be delivered medically. The whole partial birth abortion thing was a very rare occurence and by legislating against it, a few women will certainly suffer.
We are interdependent upon one another, and human children take the longest to mature, because we are social animals. But it is incongruous and somewhat insulting, I believe, to compare children who are still developing and have the possibility independence to an adult who has lost that functionality to the point where there is no quality of life. If their wishes have been previously expressed in that regard (I have advance directives, personally) then we as a society have an obligation to honor that.
suza - I've been meaning to tell you how much you honor the blog with your honesty. You have shared so much with such frankness and grace, I wanted to thank you for that. It's one thing to pontificate on my opinions, quite another to share the life experiences that have shaped those beliefs. I will strive to honor the humanity in you by sharing more of my own. (Hopefully, not to the point of boring everyone - I am, after all, my favorite topic!)
Thanks FH...that is very kind. I'm a bit of an oversharer, I worry about it a lot, so it is kind of you to
and also Gina, if you weren't here our conversations would be much shorter snf more one-sided. I also appreciate your voice and your thoughts although we disagree on many things.
Ferret, I don't mind at all. I knew exactly what to expect when I stepped in. You're a gracious hostess, and I appreciate your willingness to let a dissenter like me yammer away without being unfairly attacked...thank you.
My opinion on viability is a matter of opinion. I believe it's black and white, everyone else says it's degrees. I don't base my argument on viability anyway. I base it on the right to life that should be the fundamental right of anyone. To take away that right gives unfair power to a certain class of people. I don't expect to convince anyone who's pro-choice to become pro-life, just maybe reconsider their opinion. There are a lot of people like me out there who are into social justice that would be willing to vote Democrat more often if the Democrats would just open a dialog on the subject. Maybe in time. It's not an easy road, fighting for what seems to be a lost cause, but I'm sure the fight to end slavery wasn't either.
As for abortion and numbers, what difference does it how many were performed? Again, to me the issue is about injustice done to innocent life.
And Suza, I agree with you about ending a life where there is no hope and machines are just keeping a body alive. I watched footage of Terry Schaivo, and I don't believe it was the case with her. One of my biggest fears is to be kept alive unnecessarily. Heck, just the idea of wearing diapers to be changed by someone else and having a drool cup is enough to make me want to die.
Also, I too, appreciate you sharing your stories, it's very enlightening. I hope in some way it's therapeutic for you.
gina - while there is definitely room for pro-life people in the Democratic party (being pro-life is a choice), I don't see how there is room for pro-choice people in the Republican party, since you're not allowed the same choice.
I recently heard someone saying that people don't vote on issues, but on personalities, and the Republican's seems to be counting on that. It appears that people vote with their emotions, not their intellect - and the neo-cons have worked to make intelligence and education suspect, making ignorance of the facts the right side to be on...
GinaG, my only real point is that I think reasonable people can disagree about these issues. If the distinction I made between viability and interdependence was too fine for you to agree with, well, I guess I can accept that, along with your sarcasm. Goodness knows I've engaged in my share of snarky comments. The bottom line is that the nature of abortion (taking place entirely within a woman's body, but not necessarily causing harm to the woman) makes it a unique situation. And I thought the Supreme Court dealt with it in as fair a way as possible, given the competing interests. Obviously, people (women in particular) will have strong feelings about it. And given the interests involved, some people's feelings will clearly be more significant than others for policy purposes. And that doesn't mean anyone else's feelings mustn't be heard. There's nothing wrong with a discussion. But in the end, I think the person faced with the situation has to be the one to make up her mind what to do, unless the fetus's interests have risen to such a level of importance as to require protection. I really do understand and appreciate your position about the 44 million aborted fetuses; it's the strongest argument the Catholic Church makes against abortion. But in my mind, that argument has to sway the individual facing the choice and must not be imposed by the state, unless the fetus's interests have risen to the level of a human's.
On the other hand, if you take that argument too far, you end up with Monty Python's "Every Sperm Is Sacred."
Oh, ferret. Don't kid yourself. One cannot belong to the Donkeys without compromising that belief. It's unfortunate for them, really. Those conservative Catholics are loyal to no one but their belief in right and wrong. Honestly, I think they make or break elections. And consider this. If Dems are the ones having abortions or fewer or no children, who's going to keep your party going?
Suza, you're welcome. I like this blog, too. No one else I know will let me blabber so much about this issue. I think I'm on a mission or something.
See ferret, another person is glad you were born.
And dsg. Last but not least. Unless you can think of another way to enter this world, women are our only option. But they need men, too. That's just the way it is. Why should men be deprived of their right to claim a child just because it's only a woman who can carry it? I might agree with you about women's rights, but it gives women too much power. And I'm a woman who has had children. (It really, really hurts by the way.) We're all supposed to be equal. Doesn't allowing just the woman to have that control over who enters this world appear unfair to you as a man?
I did catch your Monte joke earlier. That was a hilarious skit. Unfortunately, that's not the real view of the Catholic Church. They believe that all life is sacred, not individual sperms and eggs.
gina - I don't agree. You can compromise on the platform. I don't agree with everything that Obama stands for - the 2nd amendment, gay rights, faith-based initiative funded by government. But, I am not going to sacrifice the good at the altar of the perfect, which is not attainable in politics.
The Roman Catholic Church's teaching on the matter of masturbation is a reflection of its overall stance on human sexuality. It says that the deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.
The Church views sexual expression between a man and a woman in the context of marriage to be a sacred, even sacramental, act. Consequently, all other sexual activity including masturbation, fornication (sex outside of marriage), homosexual acts, acts of sodomy, and the use of artificial contraception are morally disordered as they frustrate the intention of God "written" in the design of the human body. Pope John Paul II in his book, "Theology of the Body," coined the expression, "the nuptial meaning of the body" to describe this divine intention physically expressed in the body.[7] His elucidation of human sexuality is that to fulfill its sacred character, sexual expression must be a complete act of mutual self-giving only possible between a married couple open to the conception of a new child.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church lists masturbation as one of the [2] Offenses Against Chastity [3]:
By masturbation is to be understood the "deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure." Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action. "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.[8]
The above is from Wikipedia, and it conforms to my recollection when I studied to be baptized a Catholic as an adult (ah, the things we do for love, or lust).
Ferret, not true. How many Dem hopefuls and candidates have come out and said they are pro-life?
Name one and I'll send $10.00 to Obama's campaign.
Does Sen. Bob Casey of PA count? He's a pro-life Catholic that spoke at the DNC...
dsg. Let me clue you in. Sex with procreation in mind is the best sex you'll ever have. Especially if you get the intended results.
Did he run for the Presidency? If he did, you win. I should ask you to name two,just to make a better case.
Oooh! Sorry, I missed that part...How about JFK? I bet he was pro-life! (pre-Rowe...probably doesn't count.) The point I was hoping to make was that you can compromise on platform issues without compromising your principles. It makes more sense to me for a pro-lifer to be a Democrat than a pro-choicer to be a Republican...that one is just beyond my comprehension!!!
See. I win. One must compromise their pro-life principles in order to be a democrat. Either that or find a way to rationalize that something more important takes precedence.
Hint: ending an unjust war.
A lot of Catholics vote GOP because the Dems won't even acknowledge what's important to them. And, I'm sorta familiar with the GOP. There's plenty of room for pro-choice conservatives. They're socially liberal, fiscally conservative. My father-in-law is one of them. Was fairly active in the party for a long time.
When did the quality of the sex I'm having become a topic for discussion on this blog?
See gina, that's confusing to me - how can you be socially liberal and belong to the GOP...as it is today, not the traditional party? And, the neo-cons are most definitely NOT fiscally conservative. Going into debt so you can maintain tax cuts and fund a war is NOT fiscally conservative, it's down right irresponsible. Yikes, there is so much about Americans that I don't think I'll ever understand - like how they continue to vote against their own interests...
dsg - it's not...but feel free to share! ;-P
I don't know dsg. You sorta grossed me out with all of that masturbation talk. I thought I'd better set the record straight.
Ferret, Darlin', don't you know anything? The GOP will take anyone's vote, and find a way to work them in. Ever hear of Log Cabin Republicans?
They ain't stupid. They know how utilize and mobilize. Something the Dems just can't seem to grasp.
People like me used to belong to the Dem party. Somehow someone figured out how to divide us. Divide and conquer, I believe is the saying. Guess what the biggest division is?
al Qaeda knows how to utilize and mobilize, too. Proves nothing, other than bragging rights.
~
god is nonexistent. And gina's rapid cycling was obvious from the beginning. Obama08.
What are you talking about, NoSense?
Prove that God doesn't exist.
MakesSense:
How dare you suggest that I was a rapid whatever.
Ferret, is that allowed?
However did this person arrive at this conclusion. It's funny, but that is my opinion of Mr. LaSalle. No wonder TooSense thought we were the same person.
Mr. TooSense:
You're not Mick are you? Because if you are, I need to know. I have no desire to communicate with him whatsoever.
gina - I can vouch for the fact that TooSense is not Mick LaSalle. Also rapid cycling = spinning... Since it doesn't count as an insult, I think it's definitely allowed.
Don't get me started on the Log Cabin Republicans...it's not that a person's sexuality should influence thier politics so much as that the Republican Party as it stands now - over run by neo-cons - is actively hostile against people precisely because of their sexuality. They love your votes, they just despise you as a person...WTF?
Thank you, ferret.
Rapid cycling is also a condition of the mental disorder bi-polarism. Many genius's and writer's and artists suffer from it.
Oh, maybe I'm wrong...I thought TooSense meant spinning. I'm not familiar with bi-polar disorder. I shouldn't have spoken for TS.
Even so, I think the insinuation would have been your positions are bi-polar, not you yourself. But, again, I'm just guessing...
Personally, I like that you are confronting the conflict within yourself regarding pro-life vs. Democratic platform. Some people don't stop and think, they just react... I don't mind if a person is of two minds, it's when they are two-faced that I have a problem with them. ;-)
Aw, gina, I was just teasing you. ;)
~
ferret, I'm really glad that as a leftist, I can speak on your blog without fear of attack or namecalling. It's really a refreshing change, considering the right wing tripe I have to put up with on SFGate blogs.
GinaG, my post about masturbation was simply to show that the Church's view is not that far from "every sperm is sacred." Clearly, the Church disapproves of sexual pleasure outside of procreation, including masturbation.
I'll be back in a few minutes.
PS, Gina, why don't you want to communicate with Mick?
TS - does this mean you had your carpal tunnel surgery???
Hell, ferret, that's why we have two hands!
Ferret:It doesn't matter. I reserve the right to be mentally disordered. I did vote for Bush twice after all.
I don't think people should be so dog set on voting the party line. For me it's about putting the most qualified person who can do the job needed to be done at the time. The job that needs to be done in my mind right now is that we need to end this war and fix the economy. The abortion issue can wait. The GOP had eight years to fix it and it still hasn't been fixed. Why should I give them any more time considering how they've botched everything else. Maybe it's time for a different approach, anyway.
That's ok, TooSense. Italians are known for their name-calling skills--it's an art--so watch out for me.
DSG: You're wrong about the Church. They don't mind sex for pleasure at all, they only insist that it be done within the confines of preserving the sanctity of life.
And I have no desire to communicate with LaSalle 'cause there is nothing that I have to say to him.
One more thing dsg. I can only think of one instance where rigidity is a good thing. You need to lighten of on the Catholic Church. They're not the enemy. Have you ever had sex where procreation was your motive, or you were at least open to it? I highly recommend it. You may change your point of view and get a finer understanding about what the Church is talking about. There's a reason why Catholics have more children than most people.
Oh, and I forgot this too. About LaSalle. The man claims he's 100% Italian, but has a French last name.
That alone makes him a suspicious character in my mind.
Ferret: do you really want Mick to hog center-stage on your blog? Isn't that what his blog is for?
I say,let him have his own political discussion over there.For some reason, he never talks politics any more. He's dull as nails these days. All he ever talks about is what a genius he is and dumb songs and cars. Yawn.
Gina, you misread my comment. I didn't say the Church was against sexual pleasure, I said it was against sexual pleasure outside of the context of procreation. (Though I should have clarified that I meant procreation sanctified by marriage, not just any old procreation.)
I actually respect the Church's teaching on life, it's very principled, even if I do mock it slightly by joking about "every sperm is sacred." The Church even takes the very principled position that the death penalty is wrong. I just don't agree that church policy should be the law of the land; I think there is a difference between a polity and a flock.
But Gina, given your feelings about the Church's teachings on life, doesn't your sex life suffer from not engaging in any oral sex? (Goose, meet gander.)
dsg - not that you asked, but mine certainly does!
Well, Ms. Ferretti, don't let that happen! :P
Well, mostly my sex life suffers from no sex! ;-P
I'm starting to get the impression it's time for a new post...
My sex sex life is none of your business.Let's just say that right now it's everything I can handle at the moment.
About the Church. She tells us more importantly than anything, that although we have free will, we must have a developed conscience. She gives us guidelines on how to have the best life we can have, but it's up to us to follow those guidelines.
Ah, the beauty of confession, reconciliation and penance.
Anyway, you two sound like you both need good, procreative sex. Valentine's Day is a long way off, but may I play matchmaker?
GinaG, not to be impertinent, but if you believe that your sex life is none of my business, how do you presume to talk about mine?
Because I'm Ms.Presumptuous, that's why Mr. Impertinence.
Don't mess with Mr. In-Between.
Would he be Mr. Impotence, or Mr. Pretentious?
Post a Comment