Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Let's Talk Politics for a sec...
I've asked this question several times the past few days: "Can you tell me why our president is so interested in keeping a brain-dead woman alive using the scientific miracle of medical feeding tubes, but so opposed to improving brain-alive people's lives with the scientific miracle of stem-cell research?" I voted for the guy, right, but I'm beginning to think he's a bit of a moe-ron (if you know what I mean). How can one guy waffle on life/death issues without any obvious knowledge of his own hypocrisy? (While we're at it, why can't he pronounce "nuclear?") Does this behavior strike anyone else as disingenuous? Just wondering.
My opinion should be obvious in the manner in which I framed the question. Please, ignore my bias and answer honestly.
Cross responded thusly to my email query (I liked it, so I posted it here -- since he won't): "Our president likes to play God. However, he's smart enough to know that when you play God you have to understand both action and reaction. In Schiavo, he understands action (flip switch) and reaction (woman officially dies) -- he's sick and tired of being called a murderer of innocent people, so he won't take this action. In stem cells, he most likely doesn't understand the action (research & application of knowledge gained) and he definitely doesn't understand the reaction (nor do we) -- he's unwilling to admit this lack of understanding b/c doing so would
undermine his God-status; therefore, he remains in opposition to any and all exploration of all the oocky
stuff that might could happen if them white coat guys and gals got any smarter."
Kudos to Bill for recognizing there are human factors at work, and for not succumbing to standard anti-Bush political rhetoric. But his answer ignores the course of action I would have taken had the president asked me what he should do: Stay the fuck away from this one. You don't have any business being there.
Soden... I'd be curious to hear your opinion, and Jeannine's as well. She's about as pro-Bush as anyone (besides my mom) who's likely to read this.
Sorry for the somber tone. Work's got me in a major-league crank these days. I'll probably cheer up as the azaleas blossom.
My opinion should be obvious in the manner in which I framed the question. Please, ignore my bias and answer honestly.
Cross responded thusly to my email query (I liked it, so I posted it here -- since he won't): "Our president likes to play God. However, he's smart enough to know that when you play God you have to understand both action and reaction. In Schiavo, he understands action (flip switch) and reaction (woman officially dies) -- he's sick and tired of being called a murderer of innocent people, so he won't take this action. In stem cells, he most likely doesn't understand the action (research & application of knowledge gained) and he definitely doesn't understand the reaction (nor do we) -- he's unwilling to admit this lack of understanding b/c doing so would
undermine his God-status; therefore, he remains in opposition to any and all exploration of all the oocky
stuff that might could happen if them white coat guys and gals got any smarter."
Kudos to Bill for recognizing there are human factors at work, and for not succumbing to standard anti-Bush political rhetoric. But his answer ignores the course of action I would have taken had the president asked me what he should do: Stay the fuck away from this one. You don't have any business being there.
Soden... I'd be curious to hear your opinion, and Jeannine's as well. She's about as pro-Bush as anyone (besides my mom) who's likely to read this.
Sorry for the somber tone. Work's got me in a major-league crank these days. I'll probably cheer up as the azaleas blossom.
posted by Bill Purdy, 10:21 AM
6 Buffaloes were bitter enough to post comments:
I'm also a little concerned about how much the media is jumping all over this Schiavo case. It's still the top headline BEFORE the MN high school shooting, and Michael Jackson showing up to court ON TIME is 3rd?
What is it in this country?
I just want to know what the hell politicians are trying to prove in the Schiavo case and the steroids hearings. If the government wants so badly to be involved in a sports issue, go save the NHL!
What is it in this country?
I just want to know what the hell politicians are trying to prove in the Schiavo case and the steroids hearings. If the government wants so badly to be involved in a sports issue, go save the NHL!
Oh. I see. Man, I do so love your heart on this one. Looks like I struck a chord...
Matt, I'll get to you in a sec. First, Patrick...
Not only are the media inexplicably all over this one, have you noticed the way in which they use different file photos of Terry Schiavo depending on the bias the source wishes to project? The spectrum goes from: smiling, happy, (and let's face it) kinda pretty pre-heart attack picture for outlets that want to elicit as much sympathy for her parents as possible to post-heart attack (with make up) picture for necrophiliacs like Michael Schiavo, to post-heart attack and-obviously-brain-damaged-but-smiling-goshdarnit for the same audience as the first entry here, to a pretty-clearly-lights-out picture for the sick fucks who are running a Schiavo death pool. Can you tell we're being manipulated by the media? Can you tell we clearly like it?
OK, Soden:
Thank you thank you thank you for sharing your thoughts here, no matter how wrong they may be. I like to think I run an open forum, where everyone gets their due, and where I can easily delete posters that cause too much trouble (hint hint).
That little bout of passive-aggression aside, some parts of your treatise I agree with, others I do not. I agree, for instance, that Michael Schiavo appears kinda shady. But maybe that's because he values his privacy and stays out of the rather sick limelight created by this situation?
Are you suggesting Michael is covering up some sort of crime? Like, maybe he and Terry got a bit too high once, and she had a heart attack and is now in a persistent vegetative state? It's possible, but since she's been under constant medical care and unprecedented medical scrutiny for 15 years, I doubt there's anything incriminating that hasn't been discovered in the past 15 years of feeding tubes that will be in the NEXT 15. Sounds like conspiracy theory to me. And, it also sounds irrelevant. If she told her husband she didn't want to be sustained on life support, and if the courts of our great land uphold that desire, then I say let her die.
Which is more perverse, his motives (which, based on hearsay or otherwise, have stood up in EVERY level of court in this land), or her grandstanding parents? Once this is done, I bet those two'd RULE on The Amazing Race!
Michael Schiavo started this process 15 years ago, long before he started anew with another woman (which is his absolute right, and which does not IMO sully his motives any). To my eyes, he stays married to Terry because he's dedicated to seeing her life end gracefully and mercifully. I see it as a compassionate parting gesture. Her parents (and President Bush, evidently) are not thusly dedicated. They are pushing other personal and political agendas, which is why this particular issue is so engaging for conversations such as these.
Terry Schiavo's death sentence has been rendered already. The rest of it -- all this feeding tube nonsense -- is a formality. Please don't tell me you buy the argument there is someone alive inside there, when every medical expert who has examined her insists she is in a permanent vegetative state. If so, why would you discount the collective opinion of the medical establishment in order to support your own relatively uninformed opinion?
Here’s my informed opinion: life begins with eggs culled from a woman (usually living) and sperm culled form a man (also, usually, living). Get ‘em together, and oftentimes life ensues. It's also easy for me to tell you where it ends: with death. Every single time. An embryo that is used for stem cell research effectively (according to your research) lives forever. Which is much better than killing it, right? Is it better for Terry Schiavo to live forever (with a feeding tube in her stomach), or for an embryo to live forever in a petrie dish (on the chance it might someday cure paralysis or Alzheimer's, or whatever)?
Seems to me, stem cell research is a scientific issue. It is NOT a moral issue (though, I will admit there is some room for ethical debate here).
(A quick aside... while my own son's creation and subsequent growth has been fascinating and utterly wonderful, I don't agree that it is a "miracle." A miracle implies some sort of divine intervention to me -- a unique event. Six or so billion people currently on this planet [and a few billion before them] were once little embryos, infants, children -- which demonstrates rather conclusively the process is far from unique, and thus far from miraculous. He sure is cute, I’ll grant you that…)
Of course Bush "allows" research on stem cell lines. He does not have the authority (nor the political cajones) to halt it. Dozens of privately-funded lines exist, and scientists do research on them every day. Bush simply put a moratorium on further federally-funded expansion (i.e., new lines) in this area. He did this for political reasons (it's a compromise between the far right who think anything embryonic is abortion and that earth was created in seven days, and the centrists who understand the value of rigorous scientific inquiry), not because it has anything to do with the governance of our country.
Which is why I brought this up in the first place. George Bush was hired, first and foremost, to govern our country. Not to preach to us. Not to weigh in on scientific issues. Not to play golf, for that matter, but I'm willing to let the man have his leisurely pursuits. Both the Schiavo case and the stem cell issue are matters not of governance, but of politics. I find this administration's politics increasingly distasteful, and its governance increasingly inept (but not quite as inept as its politics are distasteful). I continue to hold out hope things'll get better from my perspective, but it's just not looking that good to me right now.
Thanks again, Matt (seriously this time), for posting a cool and impassioned response, and thanks ESPECIALLY for following it up with some research that doesn't necessarily support your original argument. To me, it's much more realistic to admit your mind can be changed when presented with additional information than it is to watch people scream at each other like they do on those cable news shows. Arrgh!
Matt, I'll get to you in a sec. First, Patrick...
Not only are the media inexplicably all over this one, have you noticed the way in which they use different file photos of Terry Schiavo depending on the bias the source wishes to project? The spectrum goes from: smiling, happy, (and let's face it) kinda pretty pre-heart attack picture for outlets that want to elicit as much sympathy for her parents as possible to post-heart attack (with make up) picture for necrophiliacs like Michael Schiavo, to post-heart attack and-obviously-brain-damaged-but-smiling-goshdarnit for the same audience as the first entry here, to a pretty-clearly-lights-out picture for the sick fucks who are running a Schiavo death pool. Can you tell we're being manipulated by the media? Can you tell we clearly like it?
OK, Soden:
Thank you thank you thank you for sharing your thoughts here, no matter how wrong they may be. I like to think I run an open forum, where everyone gets their due, and where I can easily delete posters that cause too much trouble (hint hint).
That little bout of passive-aggression aside, some parts of your treatise I agree with, others I do not. I agree, for instance, that Michael Schiavo appears kinda shady. But maybe that's because he values his privacy and stays out of the rather sick limelight created by this situation?
Are you suggesting Michael is covering up some sort of crime? Like, maybe he and Terry got a bit too high once, and she had a heart attack and is now in a persistent vegetative state? It's possible, but since she's been under constant medical care and unprecedented medical scrutiny for 15 years, I doubt there's anything incriminating that hasn't been discovered in the past 15 years of feeding tubes that will be in the NEXT 15. Sounds like conspiracy theory to me. And, it also sounds irrelevant. If she told her husband she didn't want to be sustained on life support, and if the courts of our great land uphold that desire, then I say let her die.
Which is more perverse, his motives (which, based on hearsay or otherwise, have stood up in EVERY level of court in this land), or her grandstanding parents? Once this is done, I bet those two'd RULE on The Amazing Race!
Michael Schiavo started this process 15 years ago, long before he started anew with another woman (which is his absolute right, and which does not IMO sully his motives any). To my eyes, he stays married to Terry because he's dedicated to seeing her life end gracefully and mercifully. I see it as a compassionate parting gesture. Her parents (and President Bush, evidently) are not thusly dedicated. They are pushing other personal and political agendas, which is why this particular issue is so engaging for conversations such as these.
Terry Schiavo's death sentence has been rendered already. The rest of it -- all this feeding tube nonsense -- is a formality. Please don't tell me you buy the argument there is someone alive inside there, when every medical expert who has examined her insists she is in a permanent vegetative state. If so, why would you discount the collective opinion of the medical establishment in order to support your own relatively uninformed opinion?
Here’s my informed opinion: life begins with eggs culled from a woman (usually living) and sperm culled form a man (also, usually, living). Get ‘em together, and oftentimes life ensues. It's also easy for me to tell you where it ends: with death. Every single time. An embryo that is used for stem cell research effectively (according to your research) lives forever. Which is much better than killing it, right? Is it better for Terry Schiavo to live forever (with a feeding tube in her stomach), or for an embryo to live forever in a petrie dish (on the chance it might someday cure paralysis or Alzheimer's, or whatever)?
Seems to me, stem cell research is a scientific issue. It is NOT a moral issue (though, I will admit there is some room for ethical debate here).
(A quick aside... while my own son's creation and subsequent growth has been fascinating and utterly wonderful, I don't agree that it is a "miracle." A miracle implies some sort of divine intervention to me -- a unique event. Six or so billion people currently on this planet [and a few billion before them] were once little embryos, infants, children -- which demonstrates rather conclusively the process is far from unique, and thus far from miraculous. He sure is cute, I’ll grant you that…)
Of course Bush "allows" research on stem cell lines. He does not have the authority (nor the political cajones) to halt it. Dozens of privately-funded lines exist, and scientists do research on them every day. Bush simply put a moratorium on further federally-funded expansion (i.e., new lines) in this area. He did this for political reasons (it's a compromise between the far right who think anything embryonic is abortion and that earth was created in seven days, and the centrists who understand the value of rigorous scientific inquiry), not because it has anything to do with the governance of our country.
Which is why I brought this up in the first place. George Bush was hired, first and foremost, to govern our country. Not to preach to us. Not to weigh in on scientific issues. Not to play golf, for that matter, but I'm willing to let the man have his leisurely pursuits. Both the Schiavo case and the stem cell issue are matters not of governance, but of politics. I find this administration's politics increasingly distasteful, and its governance increasingly inept (but not quite as inept as its politics are distasteful). I continue to hold out hope things'll get better from my perspective, but it's just not looking that good to me right now.
Thanks again, Matt (seriously this time), for posting a cool and impassioned response, and thanks ESPECIALLY for following it up with some research that doesn't necessarily support your original argument. To me, it's much more realistic to admit your mind can be changed when presented with additional information than it is to watch people scream at each other like they do on those cable news shows. Arrgh!
For clarification - I did NOT start a death pool, merely suggested it. Sure it makes me sick, but don't tell me none of you were thinking of it.
BTW, Firday, 3/25 by noon MST. In case you were wondering.
BTW, Firday, 3/25 by noon MST. In case you were wondering.
Yay! My wife visited my blog! My wife visited my blog! Yay!
Oh, wait... Bush can feel however he wants about this issue... thoughtful, or distasteful, as his feelings may be.
I contend, however, that it is not the responsibility of the president to weigh in on an issue that affects one family. In fact, I beleive his responsibility is to remain silent on issues such as these. Notice I am not questioning, for instance, his strategy in Iraq (which I may or may not agree with... I'm not tellin'). I don't question it because that's his job. And naturally, he's better at it than I am.
I can proudly say, however, that I know how to pronounce "nuclear" correctly.
I contend, however, that it is not the responsibility of the president to weigh in on an issue that affects one family. In fact, I beleive his responsibility is to remain silent on issues such as these. Notice I am not questioning, for instance, his strategy in Iraq (which I may or may not agree with... I'm not tellin'). I don't question it because that's his job. And naturally, he's better at it than I am.
I can proudly say, however, that I know how to pronounce "nuclear" correctly.
I'm still sickened that this is the main focal point of "news" coverage, but I saw something last night on the news that I found to support every reason why we should just let her die. On the local news channel, a doctor (Dave Hnida - remember his daughter was supposedly sexually harassed at CU?) showed a healthy brain scan and a scan of Terry's brain. You know the old saying, "the lights are on but nobody's home?" Well, the lights aren't on either. There is about 10% of brain left in her head. She only has her brain stem functioning, which means she can smile and grimace. However, when she does smile, it is in no way a reaction to stimuli - she has no control over it. She's been like this for 15 years people! Do you have any idea how much money and pain this family could have been saved from if they just made this decision, oh, 14 years ago? There is no hope and has never been any hope. This is about as dead as a brain can get!