Are you saying the neocons are hypocrites? What a surprise!
Posted by Cookie Monster at December 16, 2005 08:40 AMThis isn't the neocons, this the religious fundys and the politicans that either played the fundys for votes, or whom are fundys themselves.
Posted by idiosynchronic at December 16, 2005 08:46 AMSorry for the confusion. These are the religious fundys who want to keep Christmas in our stores, but take it out of the churches (closing the megachurches on 12/25).
Posted by Cookie Monster at December 16, 2005 08:49 AMJesus thinks you are all assholes.
I don't know that I'd presume to know that.
But that's just me.
This is really no different than anyone claiming to be a Christian acquiesing to the fact that everyday thousands of children go without proper nurishment in this country. Don't see Congress going out of its way to make sure hungry kids are fed. In fact they are planning on making more kids hungry.
Quite frankly the GOP shot themselves in the foot when they took up the Schiavo case. They brought big government right into our hospital rooms. Government is responsible for protecting the well being of each and everyone of us on a personal one on one basis. Nice precedent. I'd like to see any GOP lawmaker who voted for the Schiavo law claim that it's not the governments job to make sure that kids are being fed properly.
Posted by snark at December 16, 2005 08:51 AMThis is really no different than anyone claiming to be a Christian acquiesing to the fact that everyday thousands of children go without proper nurishment in this country. Don't see Congress going out of its way to make sure hungry kids are fed. In fact they are planning on making more kids hungry.
Well Snark, if the government would just tax 100% of income over $20,000 I'm sure we could provide all these things.
Posted by muckdog at December 16, 2005 08:53 AMWell Snark, if the government would just tax 100% of income over $20,000 I'm sure we could provide all these things.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
A-hole.
That was me above. Responding to muckdog and his continued paranoid dillusions that someone wants to take all his precious money away from him.
I'm not the one who injected the Congress into the personal welfare of individual citizens muck.
Just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Posted by snark at December 16, 2005 08:59 AMWhy don't they just be honest about what they really worship. This christmas sunday, just hold megachurch services at megastores. That would kill two birds (assuming that those two birds can't afford private health insurance) with one stone.
Posted by rlp at December 16, 2005 09:10 AMI read about this on Kos the other day. I can't really describe how I feel about it. Here's what I posted there:
The discussion as I understand is not about whether this person was afraid to die or should have been kept alive indefinitely on the taxpayer's dollar. The point of this diary is that the party of the "culture of life" is simply not about the "culture of life" unless you have the cash to pay your own bills. I don't like what this says about our society.
Posted by ann at December 16, 2005 09:24 AMWell Snark, if the government would just tax 100% of income over $20,000 I'm sure we could provide all these things.
Ingenuity is the mother of invention. Isn't that the way it goes? This country is supposed to be the world leader in inventing new technologies, etc. And yet we can't find a way to feed the poor? We can't find a way to keep well paying jobs in this country? We can't figure out a way to make sure that all Americans have adequate health care? We throw up our hands and say, "I got mine, and I'm not sharing just because someone wants to live a few more days."
If you ask me, it's because the deck is already stacked against doing the humanitarian things. Maybe, just maybe it's because we place value on the wrong things.
Call me a bleeding heart and tell me I'm naive. But a decided lack of empathy is leading us to third world status. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class get squeezed into oblivion.
Posted by ann at December 16, 2005 09:33 AMThese are the same people who fight Euthenasia. There are many people who ask for the right to choose a dignified death - they demand that they stay alive.
Conversely there are those who want to stay alive - just long enough to die with their mother by their side - and these people kill them for the sake of 'saving money'.
There is no reasoning to any of this; just greed and hypocrisy.
Posted by Anjha at December 16, 2005 09:36 AMPessimist: Amen - your rage is righteous.
Could someone please explain to me how, if Ms. Habtegiris was conscious, pulling the plug was not Manslaughter? It's no different than coming across a traffic accident, finding someone laying on the ground with a traumatic amputation of a limb, taking off one's Gucci belt to apply a tourniquet to the stump, then removing the belt because blood was getting on it and watching the victim bleed out and expire. Any prosecutor worth his/her salt would salivate at such a case. They could ride their political ambitions far on such criminal behavior. Isn't the hospital committee's decision Conspiracy to commit Manslaughter? I understand the financial burden the hospital found itself under but isn't that the same burden the Mafia finds itself under when it voluntarily loans money and then conspires to kill the borrower because he can't pay back the loan? Isn't this a Wrongful Death?
Posted by Paul Lucic at December 16, 2005 10:06 AMYou touch upon a major theme, Anjha. It isn't whether someone wants to die or not, but the state having total control of your life and its quality - and duration. Unless your choice matches that of the needs of the state, then the state overrules your wishes. You do not have the choice or legal control to sustain or terminate it by yourself.
Posted by pessimist at December 16, 2005 10:10 AMYes, Pessimist, it is not that these right wingers value God - it is that they value BEING God.
Posted by Anjha at December 16, 2005 10:28 AMYou do not have the choice or legal control to sustain or terminate [your life] by yourself.
Unless you do it in a very disgusting, violent or un-dignified manner.
Ask anyone who's had contact with cases of intentionally fatal overdoses, self-inflicted gunshots (or other woundings), & intentional asphixations.
The most peaceful and least mutilating of these options (that I know of) is asphixia by automotive emissions. Even then, finding the car running in the garage with a dead body behind the wheel is still un-nerving to most people and stigmatizes the dead person's choice. Dignity is still not preserved in this manner because of secrecy, state inquests, suspicion of friends and family in case they helped, and worse yet - news coverage.
(disclaimer - I know nothing more about suicide methods nor have I contemplated it in over 10 years. If you're contemplating suicide, talk to a friend or loved one, or even a counselor, forgodssakes.)
Posted by idiosynchronic at December 16, 2005 10:44 AMThis is the third such case in Texas since GWB signed the Texas Futile Care Law. What makes it even more appalling is where it happened -- Baylor Regional Med Center -- I guess that's a particular spin on Southern Baptist's views on life.
Posted by dorita at December 16, 2005 10:47 AMWhile we're talking about involuntary death (as if most death is voluntary?) and the "right's" lack of understanding about it, I gotta vent about something this week:
Some of the news/headlines on the Tookie Williams execution pissed me off....about half the time I heard he was to "die by lethal injection".
A co-worker of mine (who listens way too much to Rethuglican talking heads) didn't see the difference between saying "die" and saying "will be executed". People "die" in car accidents. People "die" of heart attacks, or even "die" by their own hand.
Regardless of what you think of capital punishment, Mr. Williams didn't just "die", he was executed.
Tell it like it is, folks. He was executed. Other citizens got together, actively excluded anyone who opposes the death penalty, decided he should be killed, and then paid someone else to kill him.
Whew, thanks.
Posted by Kaleefornian at December 16, 2005 12:04 PMMore GOP hypocrisy courtesy of Trent Lott.
Seems good old Trent has no problem resorting to law suits when it's his ass that's been damaged.
Posted by snark at December 16, 2005 12:08 PM…just tax 100% of income over $20,000...we could provide all these things.Posted by muckdog atThis is a perfect example of the utter repulsiveness of the Republican ideology. Posted by Mike at December 16, 2005 12:11 PM
"Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott and his wife sued State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. to force the insurer to pay for damage to their house in Pascagoula on the Gulf of Mexico, which was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina."
What was it Bush said about "frivolous lawsuits?"
I think Lott has enough money to pay for his own damn house.
Posted by ann at December 16, 2005 12:20 PMIf we had integrated medical/social policies in this country that worked, that used out resources rationally, we wouldn't have hungry and abused children, lousy schools for the poor, etc. We would also be able to better manage how we die. Being hooked up to a bunch of machines for a few more days or minutes of breathing is not exactly a rational use of our resources.
I think Lott has enough money to pay for his own damn house.
That may be, dear reader Ann, but if Trent Lott bought a policy from State Farm, has he not a right to get what he's paid for? If such were to happen to you or I, we would expect this. So why should he not also?
The only complaint I have is "Why is he in such a rush?" With so many other State Farm insured waiting to get paid, it's going to take some time. If he's in such a damn hurry, he can rebuild and present the replacement costs to State Farm and THEN sue them.
Posted by pessimist at December 16, 2005 12:56 PMFrom what I understand about the situation the insurers are trying to claim that storm surge damage is not covered under "hurricane insurance" but instead falls under "flood insurance". No flood insurance no payment for water damage.
Ironically, apparently Lott's brother-in-law is one of the biggest trial lawyers in the country and he's the one organizing these suits around the Gulf coast. Struggs or something lke that.
Strange bedfellows.
Posted by snark at December 16, 2005 01:09 PMThat may be, dear reader Ann, but if Trent Lott bought a policy from State Farm, has he not a right to get what he's paid for? If such were to happen to you or I, we would expect this. So why should he not also?
If his policy covered what his house was damamged for, fine, I have no beef with that. But as snark said:
From what I understand about the situation the insurers are trying to claim that storm surge damage is not covered under "hurricane insurance" but instead falls under "flood insurance". No flood insurance no payment for water damage.
That was my point. If he is trying to sue when his coverage did not extend to cover whatever loss he sustained, he should not expect special treatment. There are lots of folks all over the Gulf Coast who will lose everything for this reason.
But don't you see -- the honorable Sir Lott, being the compassionate conservative he is, is fighting for the common hurricane victim! Because, of course, the insurance companies shouldn't be able to weasel out of covering damage for everyone in the gulf like that -- he just has the resources to do what the poor, displaced masses cannot! But it's all on their behalf, really.
How long before the administration cuts or funnels to their goons all the newly allocated Gulf-hush-fund?
gosh, all the 'tis-the-season to be a jerk on the road spirit has really gotten to me.
Crs tht sm f th sm ppl tht crvd th strvtn dth f Trr Schv r nw crsng ppl tht hd n nvlvmnt r knwldg whtsvr n th nfrtnt nd f Trhs Hbtgrs' lf. Clrly th mtv fr ths dtrb s nt t prmt th prsrvtn f nncnt lf bt t vmt t th fstrng ps f ht wllng p frm th pt f plltd sl.
[Editor: ignore=off]crap, that first paragraph was supposed to be in between [rightwing spin] and [/rightwing spin]
Posted by Kaleefornian at December 16, 2005 02:57 PMGee, bendito has discovered invective and alliteration! His programmers must be adding to his PERL script!
Posted by pessimist at December 16, 2005 04:01 PMdang you boys play rough !
good-on-ya' ann
And these are the pro-lifers.
Danforth is running ads in Missouri for stem cell research. Danforth is a Pro-Lifer, but his stance in these ads is that there is nothing more Pro-Life than stem cell research. I might add that Danforth was an ordained Episcopal Priest while serving in the Senate. Good for you former Senator Danforth.
Posted by Judith at December 17, 2005 01:23 AMExcuse me, but isn't a doctor's vow "to do no harm?" What the hell is wrong with Texas?
Posted by Judith at December 17, 2005 01:28 AMAnjha, that's the part of the story that hurt the most after the Hospital decided to kill her. They could not wait for her Mother to arrive so she could "die in her arms" which was Tirhas's last request. Could not even f*cking wait for her to arrive.
Posted by Judith at December 17, 2005 01:33 AM@Bendito:
Do you genuinely see no difference between the cases of Terri Schiavo and Tirhas Habtegiris? If I had written what you wrote, I should be in fear for my soul.
Posted by at December 17, 2005 10:28 AMIngenuity is the mother of invention. Isn't that the way it goes?
Necessity is the mother of invention. Damned middle age.
Posted by ann at December 17, 2005 09:15 PMCurious that some of the same people that craved the starvation death of Terri Schiavo are now cursing people that had no involvement or knowledge whatsoever in the unfortunate end of Tirhas Habtegiris' life. Clearly the motive for this diatribe is not to promote the preservation of innocent life but to vomit out the festering pus of hate welling up from the pit of a polluted soul.
Posted by Bendito at December 16, 2005 02:57 PM
Curious that some of the same people that craved the animation of a dead husk that used to be named Terri Schiavo are now excusing people that chose to have no involvement or knowledge whatsoever in the unfortunate end of Tirhas Habtegiris' life. Clearly the motive for this diatribe is not to promote the preservation of innocent life but to vomit out the festering pus of hate that wells up from the pits of their polluted souls for anyone who chooses to believe differently than they do.
Happy holidays, Ben Ditto! May you enjoy your usurpation of pagan occult rituals within your chosen form of religious insanity.
[standard disclaimer: I rag not upon those who have sincere spiritual beliefs and express them politely and without intent to force others to obey them as though they have the force of law. I do, however, feel the need to point to the shameless, blasphemous abuse of religion to further partisan political ends - said abuse which generally shows up at The Left Coaster in hypocritical diatribes from religiously insane Putsch fellaors like Ben Ditto]
Posted by (: Tom :) at December 19, 2005 11:04 AM"Jesus thinks you are all assholes. Go back to Hell from whence you came."
Beautiful. I hope you won't mind that I am linking to this in myjournal.
Posted by Lady Lavender at December 23, 2005 08:02 AMWell Snark, if the government would just tax 100% of income over $20,000 I'm sure we could provide all these things."
That's the most insane thing I've heard in quite a while. My boyfriend makes about $30,000. I make about $8,000 on disability. We live in Baltimore City, have no car and can still barely afford to pay our bills. Our kitchen shelves are bare and our thermostat is set at 60 to keep our heating costs down to somewhere near affordable.
You want to 80% over $100,000 and 100% over $250,000 and you'd be making sense. That would be economically fair and feasible. You'd no longer have an aristocracy of 1% being the mega rich. We could afford to actually pay a living wage to our workers, none of this $7.50 an hour shit. It's no wonder our youth would rather sell drugs than work in a McDonalds.
But 100% over $20,000 and you're going to have a lot more people lining up at food banks.
Posted by Lady Lavender at December 23, 2005 08:15 AM