It’s apparently not enough for George W. Bush to have taken the words “freedom,” “liberty,” and “democracy,” and perverted their meanings beyond any recognizable definition. His latest lexical transformation targets nothing less than “life” itself. The president has been on the stump touting the “culture of life” and we can cheerily look forward to being saturated by the term for… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (61)Page 1 of 1 pagesYour last line “When we’re told they’re giving us liberty, what they’re really giving us is death”, says it all.
I’m not sure which is most disgusting to me,
George Bush redefining words to make them the exact opposite of what they have meant all my life
ORThe general populace just rolling over and accepting whatever this phony Christian tells them.
I think Bush and his gang of thugs are beyond evil.
Posted by Maggie Richards on Apr 8, 2005 at 4:22 PM Mr Cook’s article exposes the hypocrisy of Bush’s ethic of ‘life’ in the political (and therefore real life) arena.
The granting of proper healthcare to all would be a big step to Bush putting his money where his mouth is when it comes to all Americans including babies.
Bush’s statement about the strong protecting the weak relates to abortion and I am sure he does not in the least see the irony or hypocrisy of his statement with regard to those ‘weak’ who are in the light of day as it were.
I am not pro abortion partly because it is an attack on the weak. This seems to me to be obvious and if Mr. Cook were consistent in his desire to see the weak not just protected but empowered then it seems reasonable to me to argue the same for the unborn. The law which enables abortion ‘empowers’ those who want it but disempowers the very one who is not capable of power. In other words if Mr. Cook seriously is interested in the weak being empowered (which Bush and his ilk are not interested in when it comes to those out of the womb, unless it is to their advantage e.g. the number of people from low socio-economic backgrounds in the armed forces)then why is he not interested in the same for the unborn? Unless he holds some spurious notion about life a la Peter Singer. He uses the word fetus on one occasion in the article so maybe he holds the view that an unborn something or other, let’s call it a ‘fetus’, which of course begs the question ‘a fetus of what?’, is not living or a ‘person’.
Also, if we really were to build a culture in which life is valued then I think empowerment is not enough. Life needs to be valued for itself based on concepts like the preciousness of life. Political actions need to reflect and promote and build this as do individual actions. This is very diffcult for the individual of course if she is in survival mode or being ground down by poverty, and despair and an extremism of individual reponsibility (a favourite of the Bush ideologues I believe supported by the loonies on the Christian right).
Posted by eugene moreau on Apr 8, 2005 at 4:28 PM Recently, “The Frank Luntz Republican Playbook” has become available to us Democrats. And what a revelation it is. In it Luntz describes in detail how to frame the current issues and tells what words to say, and not say, for best effect. Written primarily for Republican politicians in their public debates, you hear his advise from the enablers (O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, ad nauseum,) as well. Even the MSM pick up and parrot the themes of the neocon pseudofascists.
Probably due to the exposure of the book recently on left blogs, Luntz tried to nullify the “negative” effect with an op-ed article in the LA Times recently. It was a weak and unbelievable defense, if you read the Playbook.
His counterpart on the left, George Lakoff, has a wonderful take on the psychology of the Right and Left in “Moral Politics.” Really explains what is going on in a simple way.
Posted by Merlin on Apr 8, 2005 at 5:10 PM I’m tired of surrendering the definition of terms to the Repugs, and I’m tired of reading articles giving them credit for cleverness, brilliance in setting up their incestuous think tank/lobbyist/media plant empire. I do not want to hear any admiration for any of their manipulation of media, people, funds, etc. Bushco is evil, and if you can think of any other appropriate terms to use please do, but do not ask me to respect or admire them in any way. To do so is to participate in turning words on their heads. Diabolical,heinous, vile, sly, prevaricating (okay, lying), without conscience, Machiavellian-- there are a lot better words we could use that should not flatter them. They need to learn the meaning of the word SHAME.
To see the kind of evil I’m talking about, the deliberate destruction of a culture and all its underpinnings, and perhaps 200,000 lives lost not counting the wounded, see dailykos story today from The Guardian about Saddam’s offer of surrender.
But of course if we had not invaded, we couldn’t demolish their infrastructure and angered everyone and then Halliburton and the other corrupt contractors could not have seen their $$$ glory. I want to see arrests, impeachments, imprisonment, AND restitution. I guess that’s a pipe dream.
P.S. I’m new at this so I apologize if my manners are a little rough.
Posted by marina on Apr 9, 2005 at 2:17 PM Cook has once again hit the proverbial nail on the head. My only question is this: We are by now too, too painfully aware and atuned to the Bush regime’s distortions and outright lies on just about every issue this country faces today. Why do they continue to get away with it? Sure, a vice-tight grip on the media is part of the answer; but only part of it. Neoliberal capitalism run amok is another part; but, again, only another part. The answer runs a lot deeper than that.
Recall the question just after the November “election”: Why did so many people vote against their own interests? That is to say that it is obviously not in the “interests” of poor or middle class white folks to have an oil and gas junta (as Gore Vidal calls them) running things. Yet since 1980 these folks have increasingly sided with the Reagans and Bushes to the point now that an arguable majority of them actually out number the rest of us.
The answer is race. Racial animus and not-so-subtle and concealed racial animosity toward the aparently endless increase of Hisrpanics and the ever disgruntled, dissatisfied, distrustful and downtrodden blacks is openly express by “secret ballots” for Bush and Bush clones. The one thing these people know about Bush; the one thing they admire most about him and his “ideas”, is that he will be sure to keep “those people” in their proper places. That is enough. Tax cuts for the rich don’t matter. Increasing prescription drug prices for the elderly....doesn’t matter. Public schools on the verge of collapse don’t count either...And the list goes on. Besides, most of these and similare measures tend to have a dispropotionate negative effect on blacks and browns. Therefore, they may actually be a net positive as far as most whites are concerned.
Posted by Herb Dyer on Apr 9, 2005 at 4:55 PM Herb Dyer,
You are absolutely correct. In the recent past in public forums I have been called every imaginable name for daring to suggest that bu$h is the most racist person to every occupy any office in DC.
Heck, even Strom Thurmond doesn’t look so bad next to bu$h who conceals his racism by smooching Condi Rice every once in a while & has his guests pre-approved before they are allowed near him. I wonder how long it took for him to get over his revulsion at kissing Condi.
I remember the first year that worm was in office and he appeared at West Point where a young black man received an award. He was so excited that when he bounded up on stage, he grabbed bu$h and hugged him will continuing to jump up & down with excitment.
Bu$h was horrified and it showed. He stood as stiff as a board with a shocked look on his face.
When the young man released him, bu$h wiped his hands on his sleeves.
Somewhere on the internet pictures are still posted of this event.
I think every mean thing being done reflects the racism of bu$h & Rove. Just look at Social Security & his comments about Blacks. Look at all the programs being cut which help a lot of Blacks who will never have an equal opportunity if people like bu$h continue to make the rules.When I think of bu$h, rove, Cheney, et al, I hope with all my heart that there is the kind of hell fire and brimstone that their phony religion preaches about because they surely deserve everything described in Revelations and then some.
Posted by Maggie Richards on Apr 9, 2005 at 6:12 PM With 45 million abortions under our belts, I would say the U.S. ranks a lot worse in infant mortality than 42nd.
And as for Terri Schiavo, she was murdered plain and simple.
Posted by Marilyn D Brenden on Apr 9, 2005 at 6:13 PM Hi Marilyn
Abortions are the removal of fetal tissue, unborn, that could not live on their own. They are performed by the consent of a woman who does not wish to continue carrying this fetus in her body, for reasons that are between her, her god and her family.
This is a far cry from infant mortality, which is the death of a child that has been birthed, raised, and dies for causes both preventable and, sometimes, unavoidable. Debates around abortion will rage forever, but the discussion around infant mortality is based on the willful decision of our political and social leaders to leave the poor behind. They love to talk about ‘the culture of life’ yet when it comes to paying for health care for the citizens who need it most, they do nothing. If they really wanted to prove that they care about children, including the unborn fetus, they would provide universal health care for every woman from the moment of impregnation through the entry into kindergarten. What better way to show the world that your belief in the ‘culture of life’ really and truly translates into actions? What better way to say that you care about our children, unborn and born, than to give them a quality education, a decent health plan, dental care, etc?
Until someone on the right proves to me that the arguements around the ‘culture of life’ and the rights of the unborn are more than right-wing pandering and political grandstanding, it is hard to believe what they say.
It takes more than words, it takes actions.
Posted by Masshole on Apr 9, 2005 at 8:42 PM Terri Schiavo was not murdered. She has been brain dead for 15 yrs and 4 plus years of intensive & agressive therapy showed ZERO improvement in bodily functions. Her poor shriveled body cells were kept alive artifically. She would have died a normal death otherwise within a couple days of her collapse in 1990.
What a crying shame that her parents & her siblings, especially the greedy corrupt brother cared so little for her that they released pictures of her poor useless body & made a freak show of the last yrs of her life just to please the obnoxious, rabid religious right while hauling in the money for their tasteless performance.AND the religious fanatics are not finished with Terri Schiavo yet. Did you see the farce on CSpan the past few days? These fools are actually trying to get laws passed that gives Congress control over the judicial system.
What a shame that this country & this so-called media of ours is lending any sense of legitimacy to these freaks who are trying to shove their screwed up idea of religion down the throats of everyone in the country.
Instead of cheering on the religious fanatics, perhaps you could consider taking a serious look at what they are tryng to do to our Consitution. I don’t knock anyone’s religion or lack thereof but no one has a right to force their so-called family values, “culture of life” and other BS on any other human being.
Why not practice what your bible teaches and get yourself into a closet to pray?
Posted by Maggie Richards on Apr 10, 2005 at 12:34 PM Bush is an ignorant and arrogant man, endangering America with his reckless foreign policy and deficit spending. The thug, Sharon, is now at the Bush ranch in Texas. Why is he here? One reason is to obtain more billions from the U.S. (Borrowed from China?) to finance his withdrawal from Gaza. By the way, who put all those “settlers” in Gaza to begin with?
Posted by RT Carpenter on Apr 10, 2005 at 9:54 PM Hi RT Carpenter,
You opined:
“Bush is an ignorant and arrogant man.”I have this strange feeling that I would like to be able to agree with that. At least I could feel that he has a real person beneath the facade that he parrots, as much as I would dislike and disagree with him. All I see is a ventriloquists dummy, spouting the Rovian neocon line. No better image of this can be pointed to than the box on his back clearly visable beneath his jacket during the first debate with Kerry. Sad thing is that the neocons never disproved that it wasn’t some electronic device hooked up to Rove or someone. It would have been simple to show it, if it was a legitimate medical device or some such thing.
It certainly makes me wonder how they make his mouth move and his feet walk. It is hardly believable that a human could continue to say the things he does with a straight face.
Posted by Merlin on Apr 10, 2005 at 11:48 PM I am a Disabled American Veteran and rated 100% Service Connected and a veteran of two wars, Vietnam and Desert Storm. The Bush administration toots its horn about how much they have helped the VA and the truth is the agency is serverely underfunded, has a complete idiot running the House Veterans Affairs Committee, the Department of Defense has a individual that literally hates veterans running the show for benefits from that department and not a word from the Bush administration. This is the most closed to the public administration since Lyndon Johnson and it has no intensions of assisting those that are in need of help. The party line is far too important to work in a bipartisan way to get things accomplished in the Congress. The President will not answer any mail nor will Donald Rumsfeld and over half of the Republicans in the Senate and Congress. To write them is a waste of time. The only language they will understand is the loss of seats in the 2006 election. It is unfortunate but that seems to be the only way we can get this President to respond to anything the public sends to him.
Posted by David Hudson on Apr 11, 2005 at 10:38 AM Slow down folks. I don’t appreciate the stateof afairs in the U.S now either, but give Mr. Bush a little slack.
I think too often the Bush adversaries give him way too much credit. He’s not that smart folks. Just determined and stays on point. As long as he says his lines he’s okay. Ever wonder why he doesn’t wade out into the crowd? He can’t think on his feet at all. So what?
He’s one of the 30. You know, the 30 people in the U.S. raised in an environment where eveything is a success. Every failure is fixed. It takes more than money, it takes political clout. And the Bush family has it. So get over it and hope the voters defeat his annointed successor, whoever that may be.
Posted by chris on Apr 11, 2005 at 1:58 PM Hi Chris,
You cautioned:
“give Mr. Bush a little slack… I think too often the Bush adversaries give him way too much credit.”I don’t think the folks here are guilty of this. I am willing to bet that most here know that Bush is a front man for Cheney and the neocons. That said, he is the… er...man who puts his name to what the neocons are doing, (The Bush Doctrine.) So he gets yelled at as the “go to guy.” Regarding giving him a little slack, why would I ever want to do that? He has chosen his poison, and I say, let him choke on it. He deserves no less than constant intense surveillance and exposure for his lying and insidious ways, not to mention the destruction and suffering, the policies he espouses have wrought.
Posted by Merlin on Apr 11, 2005 at 3:13 PM “Slow down folks. I don’t appreciate the stateof afairs in the U.S now either, but give Mr. Bush a little slack.”
Sure, with a noose at the end of it.
Posted by Lefty on Apr 11, 2005 at 4:39 PM I saw a great definition for GOP earlier today. As a matter of fact I think it is the most descriptive & accurate definition that I have seen as applied to that illustrious political party.
GOP = Grand Old Prostitutes !
Posted by Maggie Richards on Apr 11, 2005 at 4:50 PM evil? stupid? racist? greedy? all and more without doubt but the puppet not the puppeteer, george is actually representative of the average “american” whom would rather war for fuel than walk for health or fun. the average american cannot afford gasoline nor is wiling to learn to live without . . . . all will change relatively quickly as wells run dry, air/atmosphere becomes barely useable, the world economy becomes an unrecoverable shambles and on & on. the current average american is not a survivor plus the planet has about four billion to many semi-sentinent homo sapiens on it .........
Posted by james r cummins, orchardist/farmer on Apr 11, 2005 at 5:55 PM For a really entertaining and enlightening book about the adventures in the English language as practiced by George W. Bush read The Bush Dyslexicon by Mark Crispin Miller. It is chock full of off-the-cuff remarks from the not so Christian mouth of our President. It also documents the many occasions when George W. had to be translated to be understood when he was on the national stage.
Even so, his shortcomings were always diluted or congratulated by a servile press. However, other personalities, like say Jesse Jackson were ridiculed or poked fun of with derisive “Ebonic” interpretations.
L. Brent Bozell of the Media Access Project, who has a great deal to do with what you see on your television screen and what you don’t, was a guest on an interview where Mark’s book was being discussed.
Bozell was livid about the book and defended the Bush family as good Christians with the right family values imbued with unassailable character and honesty. Then, as is the custom when these folks run out of recitation he invoked the liberal/left-wing/amoral/Clintons brickbat.
(Does it strike anyone as odd that when it suites them they point out that Clinton is no longer the president but when they are cornered with a lie, like say a videotape as evidence, they try an escape by invoking the Clinton Amendment?)
Didn’t work, Mark confronted him with facts and Brent stewed until presenting as the perfect banty rooster in his flaming red hair and beard. Look for his act coming to your TV screens soon, he is everywhere, and a real treat for homeschoolers.
All I know is that Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Rice AND George W. have admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and still a majority of Americans believe that they did.
Those liberals in the Media sure are doing a great job, don’t you think?
Posted by David T. Gray on Apr 11, 2005 at 9:55 PM Herb and Maggie,
If “hidden racism” was in fact the reason people vote for conservatives it would be easy to track. Voting of racial minorities would be declining or flat and voting for Whites would consistently trend upward as the percentages of minorities increases.
Instead, we see that Hispanic, Black, and Asian voting for conservatives is trending upward while White voting is varied. Sorry, ‘hidden racism’ doesn’t explain, at all, why more Blacks and Hispanics vote conservative each election.
The much more likely reason so many of “the poor” vote conservatively is the same reason so many wealthy White actors vote liberally - both groups set aside their own self-interests in service to what they perceive as ethically necessary.
Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 12, 2005 at 5:29 AM I am really enjoying the palaver...how many of you are actively members of the DNC...how many listen to AirAmerica? How many BuyBlue or Choose The Blue? I hear a lot of progressive liberal ideals spouted here. It will take a lot more than words to change what the future holds. It will take actions. I’m just curious, not ranting. I’m very very new at this, I love reading the various reactions to the same bit…
Also some really good bumperstickers:
“Impeach Cheney First” “George Bush Thinks You’re Stupid” and of course the village in Texas that’s missing its idiot. Gotta love that one. Wish he’d go home....
Posted by cisco on Apr 13, 2005 at 9:45 AM A smart article, that draws attention to the Bush regime’s manipulation of words to hide their actions, which are precisely opposite to the words’ actual meaning. Eerily reminds me of an earlier George--Orwell-- and his points about Newspeak.
Posted by gerry on Apr 13, 2005 at 10:56 AM Cisco,
I am a card-carrying DNC member, I listen to Air America and NPR, watch BBC News and also Canadian news. I go online to oldamericancentury.org, this site, Salon and a few others. I belong to MeetUp for two different groups-one to impeach Bush, one to force election reform (electronic voting). In dealing with people on these various sites, I’d say many are active physically and well as verbally. But, everyone does need to be more involved in reaching the deceived masses, you’re right.
You might like my bumper stickers”
“SURE YOU CAN TRUST THE GOVERNMENT--
JUST ASK AN INDIAN”AND
“GOT DEMOCRACY?”
Posted by Margaret on Apr 13, 2005 at 2:59 PM Folks,
If 65-70% of all you citizens voted, then Bushco could not be elected. Seems to me you got a real issue getting people to vote at all-never mind how they cast it once they get to the polls. If ordinary working americans voted in the same proportions as other polities, I reckon your politics wouldn’t be so squewed to the right, away from th interests of ordinary working people . I’m not talking left here, I’m just talking rights that working people elsewhere in the advanced capitialist world take for granted. How ‘bout it!
Posted by jane doe on Apr 13, 2005 at 8:45 PM Cisco,
Nice bumper sticker, but I still the best one that I have ever seen is:
“Dummy Warhead Found In the White House”
If anyone is interested go to:
whiterosesociety.org and click on the Randi Rhodes Show archive, click on April 13 and listen to her interview with Scott Ritter. He says will be in Iran by June. He has been right about everything so far. From the gitgo.
Posted by David T. Gray on Apr 14, 2005 at 7:22 PM The following was a challenge given out [Ed. note: which has now been slightly modified April 18, 2005] and also included below is a URL for our press release:
From your friendly neighborhood moderator/creator of terrisjustice. See below. We have been challenged and now I must issue my challenge to you.
Those in the pinnacles of authority [Jeb Bush and others] believe that we are going to melt away and give up seeking justice for Terri.
The famous motto of the Zapatistas is one response of ours in this regard: Ya Basta!
We will never surrender! We will never tire!
Challenge to you: go out and inform 10 other people what happened to Terri. Get them signed on terrisjustice. Ask them to do the same.
This is how the grassroots grows and is the only true means of getting a true geometrical progression realized.
If you are not for getting justice for Terri against those with blood on their hands do not join this list. If you are a spy or have mal-intents and you try to join or succeed in joining please leave the list or it may be that one day you will die a horrible death not at our hands but as a result of your disingenuous actions which resulted in karmic repercussions. This is a form of what is called felos-de-se (a senseless or purposeful act of self-murder).
NOTE:
A great deal of lee-way is necessary, given the scope of the work, and I am committed to freedom of expression. HOWEVER, it does sometimes become necessary to remind ourselves of our purpose and the basic rules of etiquette when communicating with others.
Flame wars and attacks on the character of others are not allowed on this list, and other members of the list not involved should not be subjected to emails containing such material - carry them on in private please if you must, or more adult behavior, don’t indulge in them at all.
We will remind once in awhile if things get a little out of hand, and any continued offense will be dealt with by either a moderation of the posts of the offender(s) or, when all else fails, a complete ban on those posts, especially when several complaints have been received from offended list members.
We have never had to take action in some years of doing this, and we hope this will never be necessary. Thank you for your support, and may your experience on this list be as enjoyable as it is informative.
URL for press release [also contained in Yahoo! News]:http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/4/prweb229498.php
JS
Posted by pc93 on Apr 19, 2005 at 12:12 AM Please note the title of this article, “The Vultures of Life”.
That means you. You turned that poor brain dead woman into a freak show and now you want help in continuing this obscenity.
Forget it you jerk. You and your ilk are disgusting beyond words. My living will dictates that if a freak like you shows up near my death bed, that you will be arrested, prosecuted & sued for invading my privacy.
Posted by Maggie Richards on Apr 20, 2005 at 7:13 AM Maggie, Maggie, Maggie,
She wasn’t brain dead. As a matter of fact, that’s the real issue. Florida law allows brain dead people to have life support and sustenance removed. It *doesn’t* allow it for PVS - ‘cuz it ain’t the same.
Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 20, 2005 at 10:18 AM Hi Rick,
You said:
“ She wasn’t brain dead.”Are you saying that her brain did not have “irreversable brain damage?” If so, what is your source for this statement? Secondly, what is your definition of brain death?
Posted by Merlin on Apr 20, 2005 at 10:57 AM I said what I said. there is a vast difference between irreversable brain damage and brain death, as any good medical distionary can attest. And my definition of brain death is the one I read when I pick up that same distionary, or read the various and sundry laws of the many states - permanent lack of brainwave acticity on an eeg. This differs from a persistent vegitative state where brainwave activity is present and often very active and variable.
Florida law states you can ‘disconnect’ someone who is brain dead - it says you can’t disco someone in PVS. Hence, the issues a number of secular people had about the entire affair.So - she wasn’t brain dead. No doctor or lawyer ever claimed she was.
Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 20, 2005 at 12:18 PM When one has a big black hole (or Liquid) where the brian is supposed to be he is brain dead no matter how much anyone twists the words. Said person would die a natural death within days without forced feeding (& breathing in some cases).
Rick, nothing personal dear, I wouldn’t put too much faith in a person who apparently does not know how to use spell checker, to make a medical decision or give a medical definition for me.
PVS....is being unable to do, say, or think for oneself. You call it what you will. I say it’s dead.
Posted by Maggie Richards on Apr 20, 2005 at 12:31 PM From prweb.com/ site.............
Disclaimer: If you have any questions regarding information in these press releases please contact the company listed in the press release. Please do not contact PR Web™. We will be unable to assist you with your inquiry. PR Web™ disclaims any content contained in these releases.
....................
So much for pc93 tying to make his post look like more legitimate by making this “release” look as though it was featured by major news sources.
Posted by Maggie Richards on Apr 20, 2005 at 12:38 PM OK, Maggie, I won’t confuse you with the facts. You just reach whatever conslusions you want and keep them despite being factually wrong. And I am a lot less worried about making the occassional spelling error than not caring about the difference between brain dead and PVS.
BTW, have you ever heard of one of the treatments for epilepsy? Doctors remove an entire hemisphere of the brain. Now *that* is a big hole! Odd that their quality of life goes up, isn’t it? Maybe this is a bit more complicated than you will admit.
Many people require tube feeding during things ranging from cancer treatments to recovery from auto accidents. Since *they* will die in a few days otherwise, should we let them die, too? Oh, how about people who are paralyzed! Sure, some of them have lived a long time, become artists, even won prizes for literature - but who would want to live like that? Wanna’ remove their feeding tube, too? After all, they aren’t *really* alive, not like you, right?
Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 20, 2005 at 12:57 PM Hi Rick,
You replied:
“I said what I said. there is a vast difference between irreversable brain
damage and brain death, as any good medical distionary can attest.”So, in other words you won’t give your definition and you are claiming that you are the source of this determination. (“I said what I said.)
Without a definition to back you up, this is only your opinion, and not a fact as you imply. Based on the definition below, there is no difference between the two at all.
Here is a “good medical dictionary’s” definition.
From the American Heritage Stedman’s Medical Dictionary. An identical definition can also be found at dictionary.com.brain death - Irreversible brain damage and loss of brain function
Posted by Merlin on Apr 20, 2005 at 1:43 PM Either you stopped reading after one sentence or your reading comprehension needs help. A direct cut and paste from the post in question, where you claim I didn’t give a definition, is;
“my definition of brain death is the one I read when I pick up that same distionary, or read the various and sundry laws of the many states - permanent lack of brainwave acticity on an eeg.”
Sheesh. I even kept the spelling error.
And the determination was made by Schiavo’s doctors (although some argued that she wasn’t even as far as PVS, *no* doctor that examined her ever claimed she was brain dead).
NOTE: Your definition has the word ‘and’, meaning both conditions must be true
Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 20, 2005 at 2:28 PM Merlin,
Before you try to parse, if ‘irreversible brain damage’ equals ‘brain dead’ then Larry Flynt, for one, is brain dead (despite all the writing and public speaking he’s been doing over the last few years), as are a slew of auto accident survivors and anyone who’s had a few too many drinks all at once!
Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 20, 2005 at 2:31 PM Merlin, it’s hardly worth the cyberspace to argue with one who has swallowed the “approved” propaganda & who just about always uses the “Just because I said so”.
Frankly I think that Mr. Stump could probably learn a thing or two from Ole’ Larry Flynt. Say what you will about the porno king, he figured out how to get the info on crooked politicians. He did the same thing they did, waved a few bucks around & those with the tales came running.
Not quite sure how Larry Flynt came into the picture but I am betting that it’s because that is a typical ‘righty’ trick, change the subject when they run out of memorized answers.
The bottom line is still this: None of you self-appointed gods & do gooders had any right interferring in the Schiavo family business. It’s just not any of your business.
It’s time we got these loud mouth, holier than thou, scumbags out of the business of running this country.
I am still trying to figure out how the Jerry Falwells, & other rabid religious fanatics got into the government of this country. We need to throw all these money grubbing bastards out of the temple & most certainly out of the business of making & enforcing laws. They are all a bunch of lunatics.
Posted by Maggie Richards on Apr 20, 2005 at 2:50 PM Maggie,
So - *you* stop responding to arguments, *you* make ubsubstantiated claims or make an error of fact and *I* am the one who says ‘just because’?? That’s too sad to be funny.Speaking of family business, how about wife battering? That’s just inside the family. Or how about families who deny their children medical care? That’s just ‘within the family’s business’, right? No? Well, I agree - it is the community’s business and obligation to protect the weak, even ‘within a family’.
Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 20, 2005 at 4:37 PM C’mon Maggie - let’s have some ideas here. Clarify a position, make a logical, rational argument that you are right.
Here’s my position. The laws of the state of Florida define when a family has the right to deny life-sustaining medical treatment and when they do not. When they can is when the person is brain dead. The Florida legislature was kind enough to define what they consider brain dead, too.
No doctor or lawyer claimed that Schiavo was brain dead (as defined in the law) but wanted to deny her feeding anyway. After numnerous legal battles a judge ordered the feeding stopped *without* the law being changed. This is clearly a serious problem, when judges disregard the law.
As for this being a ‘purely family matter’, there are almost no ‘purely family matters’ that trump the duty of society and government to protect people from violence or death. Thus, we have laws preventing child abuse, spousal abuse, etc. Clearly there is a legal and moral precedent to intervene in ‘family business’ to protect the various members of the family from one another.
So, here are my thoughts on the matter. You can continue to call me a loudmouth, or a waste, or anything else. But you aren’t taking this opportunity to show me or anyone else that I am wrong and you are right. No one involved can learn or grow and, perhaps, find out they were wrong. Or learn something all new.
Maybe *that* is how all those people you don’t like are influencing the society in ways you don’t like. They make statements and arguments and no one responds with satements and arguments. The people observing see what looks like a coherent idea on one side and nothing but attacks on the other and decide based on just that.
Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 21, 2005 at 6:00 AM Terri was not PVS. She was actually minimally conscious, a medical category that was not in existence at the time she had a label placed on her.
She actually functioned at about the level of a 10 month old. That is not dead in any sense of the word.
Posted by Marilyn D Brenden on Apr 25, 2005 at 2:33 PM I was going to say “blow it out your ***” but you are already doing that aren’t you?
Not wasting my time fooling with fools.
An old man was sitting on a bench at the mall. Young george bu$h walked up to the bench and sat down. He had spiked
hair in all different colors: green, red, orange, blue, yellow.The old man just stared. Young george said sarcastically, “What’s the matter old timer, never done anything wild in your life?”
Without batting an eye, the old man replied, “Got drunk
once and had sex with a parrot. I was just wondering if you were my son.”
Posted by Maggie Richards on Apr 25, 2005 at 3:19 PM Marilyn,
I am sure you are a sweet, concerned person, but your information is incorrect. The doctor that produced that diagnosis during Terri’s final days is pretty well thought of in the medical community as a quack. Sorry. In a few weeks the results of the autopsy will be released, and you will learn that Terri’s brain had atrophied to the point where the largest portion of her cerebral cortex had putrified into liquid. There were no thoughts, only automatic reactions like flinching, that the body does through the brain stem. The brain stem was the only functioning part of her brain. She was in a persistant vegetative state, Terri had long ago left the building.
I understand you want fair treatment for the disabled and that is why you make your comments. I suggest that you wait for the autopsy results. No one can fault you for caring, but the religious right (I am a born again Christian also) has gone so far off-base on this one, in particular. Please read this site and also oldamericancentury.org and you will see that you are being misinformed through righ-wing propaganda. Sorry.
Also, the judicial nominees that are being blocked---it has nothing to do with their religion. It’s that those 4 judges (out of the 10 remaining) are Libertarians and wish to do away with much of the Constitution by undoing what has been passed since around the passage of the 13th Ammendment, especially wage and labor laws, federal regulating committees, etc. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION. YOU ARE BEING LIED TO.
SORRY.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 25, 2005 at 4:07 PM Maggie,
Yup, the people in the back have tears in their eyes over your eloquent, thoughtful response to my measured tones.
I must assume that curses and unrelated jokes are the only response you can muster to a clearly explained position. I didn’t invoke God, I simply pointed out the facts of the law in the state of Florida. How does that make *me* a fool?
Next time you sit in your car, white-knuckled in rage because someone you despise in elected, or some opinion you oppose is aired on the radio, remember this - you can’t answer. Your anger isn’t a response, it is a capitulation. You haven’t answered a single question of mine, just insulted me and others.
People who read this will note that, people who disagree with you will ignore you. If someone is undecided, what can they do after reading this? Well, they can either go look up the laws of Florida, like I suggest, or they can repeat a stupid joke or insult opponents, like you. Which is more convincing, in your view?
For all your apparant hatred of anyone who disagrees with you, all I am asking is that you look up the law and answer me. Or give a clear explaination of why you think the way you do. Why is that beyond you?
Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 26, 2005 at 5:57 AM Margaret,
The issue many of us have is not if she was in PVS, but that the laws of Florida don’t allow for someone who is in a PVS condition to be denied care. I don’t care what a Baptist minister thinks, I care that a judge simply decided to apply a law o a clas of people that weren’t included in the wording ‘just ‘cuz’.
As for judicial nominees, I must disagree - when the focus of the questions from Democrats for at least two of them are ‘since you are Catholic, won’t you [oppose pro-choice/stem cell research/etc]’ it at least *looks* like it is about religion.
Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 26, 2005 at 6:01 AM Sorry Stump… I am not going to waste my time repeating facts that have been repeated to death, here & other places, only to have bird brains like you post pages of george bu$h approved propaganda.
I’ve had about all the fake Christianity that I can stomach.
You rabid righties don’t give a royal damn about Terri Schiavo or any other person. It is nothing but a means of shoving your inane type of Christianity down out throats.
As far as I am concerned you can go fly a kite.
You fight like hell to call a cluster of almost invisible cells a baby & for brain dead people but the hell with the lies that have killed over 1500 of our soldiers and thousands of people in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You are the most brazen hypocrites alive on this planet today and you do it all in the name of YOUR god who is apparently as phony and self-serving as you are.
If you people are what’s going to be in heaven, I refuse to go.
There’s never been a better time to repeat the old Abbie Hoffman quote, “Just wait until Jesus gets his hands on you, you little bastard”! AND I mean that with all my heart!
By the way, if george bu$h is a Christian, I am the Virgin Mother.
Posted by Maggie Richards on Apr 26, 2005 at 7:32 AM By the way Stump,
One thing I have noticed is that when a rabid republican righty tries to describe me or anyone else who disagrees with him, he always, ALWAYS describes himself.
It’s sad to hear the you sit in your car, “white-knuckled in rage because someone you despise in elected,....”,
I guess you are describing your feelings toward our last legally elected president, William Jefferson Clinton.
It’s good to know that you can’t get over him. It tickles me pink to see that he can still p*ss off you goons better than any other living human being!
Posted by Maggie Richards on Apr 26, 2005 at 7:40 AM Maggie,
Fascinating. Now you are slipping into fantasy.
Ready for a shocker, Maggie? I voted for Clinton. Twice. And was a Democratic volunteer in college. Student head of the Student Coalition for Peace and Justice at college, member of Veterans for Peace and Ground Zero, and someone who spoke about international justice and human rights at Unitarian churches all over the country until my kids were born.
In other words, this ‘rabid republican’ ‘goon’ probably has more liberal credentials than you *ever* will. I also lived through my wife being told that I might never recover and she should consider her “options” - all while I could hear and understand what was being said without being able to respond.
So go ahead, live in la-la land where everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot and everyone who agrees with you is on the side of Truth and Justice. Expect people to agree with you because its “obvious” you are right without ever explaining *what* you think or how you reached your conclusions.
Oh, and everyone who doesn’t think just like you is a ‘goon’, a fool, or an idiot.
Just don’t be too surprised by the mocking laughter that follows you around.
Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 26, 2005 at 7:52 AM Maggie,
Sheesh - what are *you* reading?! I have yet to mention God or religion in regards to Schiavo. No, go re-read everything in this thread. See? I am talking about the LAWS of the state of Florida - period. I have echoed the medical conclusions of the doctors hired by Terri’s HUSBAND and HIS lawyer and disagree with her parent’s doctors and lawyers.
Read that again, because your comments indicate that you are reading someone else and *think* its me or you are so divorced from reality that you think that anyone who diwsagrees with you is a rabidrepublicanrightyChristianhypocritewhocangoflyakitegoonetc.
YOU are the one mentioning abortion, YOU are mentioning religion, etc. I am making a purely *secular* argument based upon the law of Florida - period. Please try to awake from your rage-induced psychosis and actually read what I’ve written and try to respond with reason and logic.
Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 26, 2005 at 7:58 AM On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God’s name on one’s behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I’m frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in ‘A,’ ‘B,’ ‘C,’ and ‘D.’ Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate.
I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of ‘conservatism.’
– Sen. Barry Goldwater (R)
....................................Tired of the “Stump Story” clogging my mailbox so I am signing off. I have no desire to read all you inane & reprtative rants. Get over yourself Stump.
Your opinion is just that, your opinion and in case you need reminding, it’s just like a certain body orifice, everybody has one..... except poor brain dead people like Terry Schiavo.
Posted by Maggie Richards on Apr 26, 2005 at 9:11 AM Maggie,
Good-bye to you, too. I wish that you explained what you think and how at least once. And I have no idea why you continue to attack religion when I am discussing the [secular] law of the land. Since you appear unable to answer a direct question, I will move along.
Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 26, 2005 at 10:31 AM Rick,
Then you must be pretty angry that the US Sentate overstepped State’s rights by meeting illegally (against the Separation of Powers clause of the Constitution) and trying to neuter the Florida judiciary. Who, by the way, is a born-again Christian conservative Republican (Greer).
It’s so funny that the Right has made such a huge fuss over gay marriage violating marital rights, but when the woman’s husband and two witnesses state she didn’t want to be kept alive that way, suddenly the Republicans see an opportunity to impress and payback the Christian Right for their votes. Suddenly, marriage sanctity goes out the window for political gain. A little hypocritical, don’t you think?
Thanks to Terri, my husband and I have had living wills made up so that we will pull the plug on each other after only 1 year of coma. No one should be forced to live like that.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 27, 2005 at 9:36 AM Margaret,
You seem confused. The Separation of Pwers clause in the constitution provides that congress is invested with legislative power, the courts with judicial, and the president with executive. The issue at stake was that the judge in the case (whose personal beliefs are moot) did not judge on the basis of the existing law, but acted in a way *outside* the law. In effect, Judge Greer usurped legislative powers by deciding that Mr. Schiavo could do something impermissible by law.
Do you understand? many people are confused by this. If the law states “Dumping of arsenic is finable up to $1,000,000” and someone is fined by the judge for dumping tomato juice, the judge has not enforced the law, he has made a new law - that is called ‘legislation’.
Florida law allows the discontinuity of care in cases of brain death, but not PVS (a distinct medical condition). When Jedge Greer ordered the cessation of care he stepped beyond judging the case and legislated the case. At which point congress was more than authorized to act.
And I still fail to see how protecting the life of someone who cannot speak for themselves is ‘violating the sanctity of marriage’. If a neighbor had reported that Melissa down the street was often bruised and seemed afraid of her husband and Social Services investigated to see if she was being abused by her husband, would you be offended at the violation of the sanctity of marriage? If Melissa’s kids were going to the hospital with broken arms every 6-9 months, would you prevent the police from investigating because it might infringe on family privacy? Then the death of a person should rank as high, shouldn’t it?
OK, you don’t think anyone shoudl have to live ‘like that’. Do you make legal decisions rationally or emotionally?
Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 28, 2005 at 10:33 AM Wow, two non-answers in a row.
Maggie - please try to make a statement of fact.
Merlin - please enlighten me as to how the government is justified in interfering in family affairs to prevent spousal abuse but not to prevent death.
Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 29, 2005 at 9:46 AM As usual, you don’t get it. My comment was not a “non answer.” I wasn’t answering anything. Answering you has no point. It was simply an observation that I think is true. And, ironically, you said it yourself.
I quoted you out of context, of course. But then, context means very little to you unless it suits your own interest.
Posted by Merlin on Apr 29, 2005 at 11:34 AM Hi Rick,
Look, the situation between us is simple. I am afraid for our country, and you are not. I think this neocon quasifascist administration is 180 degrees off in all the major issues that comprise life in our country and the world. You believe that everything is just hunky dorey the way it is, or you are nothing more than a neocon enabler, a trumpet for the extreme right. I see you as a man who is smug and self righteous, and you see yourself as a humble righteous man “engaging in debate” and endeavouring to change peoples minds through an honest debate of facts, laws and rules. You, I would guess, see me as a left wingnut thrashing out at everyone who doesn’t believe the way I do. Neither of us is going to budge from our position.Just so you “get it”, this is why I said, “I wasn’t answering anything. Answering you has no point.”
Posted by Merlin on Apr 29, 2005 at 12:15 PM Merlin,
Sorry, pal, saying ‘you don’t get it’ may make you fell better, but you (like Maggie) cannot explain why you think the way you do, or are unwilling to. Either way, you have made yourself irrelevant.
Here’s a hint. If someone offers to let you change their mind, don’t refuse and blame them forbeing unwilling to budge. You have *no idea* if I won’t budge from my position because you *haven’t tried*.
And since I am discussing a relatively narrow point of law, I have no idea where the “neocon quasifascist enable” rhetoric spewed in from. Like I told Maggie - keep refusing to engage in debate, continue to refuse to convince people you are right with logic when they *ask you to*, and keep wondering why no one understands you.
Posted by Rick Stump on Apr 29, 2005 at 1:52 PM I did make a statment of fact
IDIOT!
What part of IDIOT don’t you understand?
Posted by Maggie Richards on Apr 29, 2005 at 2:04 PM Hi Rick,
“...you have made yourself irrelevant.”Hey, you finally get it! Congratulations. You made yourself irrelevent to me, many, many posts ago. So we both consider each other irrelevant. That was the point of my last post.
Posted by Merlin on Apr 29, 2005 at 2:59 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Brian Cook
- Five Years on the Hotel Picket Line
- Joys of ‘The Wire’
Some critics have called HBO's hit series 'depressing' and 'nihilistic.' They couldn't be more wrong. - Blackwater Nation
Contracting soldiers of fortune is only one example of our recent philosophy of government - The Kids Aren’t Alright
Daniel Brook's The Trap reminds us that inequality is bad for everyone, rich and poor - Death from Above
For the Iraqi people, the surge in U.S. troops has meant more bombs dropping from the sky and a surge in deaths - Not Neutrality
Why are the Communications Workers of America opting out of the Save the Internet coalition?
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2005 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
