Reader Mail
Hospice Talk
Nurse Biffy replies. Freedom vs. Kiwicare. Robert Novak. Imaginary Republicans. Plus more.
BE NOT AFRAID
Re: Betsy McCaughey’s
Recent Media Coverage of the End of Life Counseling
Provisions:
Why are you so afraid of end of life plans and adherence to that
plan? As a nurse I feel this topic should be open for discussion
between a doctor and patient. This kind of dialogue is crucial
for when “the time comes” and it’s easier for all involved
(families, patient, and caregivers) if the patient’s wishes be
known and adhered to. Everyone has a choice to live (and die) how
they choose. I feel it is an injustice to leave these kinds of
decisions to an emotional family member at a critical moment when
they should be free of the guilt that comes with making an
emotional decision. I’ve personally seen much heartbreak and
sibling tension during these kinds of moments, all because nobody
wants to talk about death — it’s a part of life. I feel so bad
for a family that has to deal with this when nobody is thinking
clearly, and many choose any form to save a relative that is
truly dying, and leave our facility feeling as though they have
failed their loved one. I feel that hospice is truly a beautiful
organization that provides caring, counseling and a way to accept
the reality of death and comforts not only the family but the
person who is terminal — that is the most important thing. Many
are scared of the word hospice, I feel that information is the
key, and all should be educated of their choices and everybody’s
wishes should be honored. Thank you for taking the time to read
my point of view.
— Biffy
BEARING HIS FALSE WITNESS
Re: Peter Ferrara’s Catch
Me If You Can:
Commuting home last night (Wednesday, Aug. 19), I heard an ABC News radio spot that reported that Obama had spoken, by telephone conference, with certain “religious” leaders today and asked them to help him get Obamacare — whatever that is — passed.
He’d asked they speak with their neighbors, anyone.
He’d said, according to ABC, that he was asking them to do so because there were people — read: those who disagree with him and have the audacity to say so, including at townhall meetings and through other means — who were spreading false information.
Obama’s hubris truly startles and alarms me. The prevaricator- and abortionist-in-chief, who apparently pathologically does believe that he alone speaks truth and owns nothing he’s said, asked religious leaders to spread his lies and misinformation. From churches and synagogues, too.
As many people have said or written, Obamamath does mean 2 + 2 =
5, or anything else you want it to mean, but never
4.
— C. Kenna Amos Jr.
Princeton , West Virginia
I hear the Obama Administration talk of getting a health bill
passed by compromise. Maybe the so-called public option can be
used as a bargaining chip to bring The Republicans to the table.
So what do the Republicans say? That Obama is not a U.S. citizen,
and has no right to be President, that his plans are socialist
and contain death panels, and that they hope the Obama Presidency
fails. I cannot think of a single nice thing that a Republican
congressmember has ever said about Obama or his plans. Not a one.
Can you? Where does Obama get the idea that Republicans want to
work with him? They clearly don’t want to.
— Jen Park
WE’RE ABOUT FREEDOM AND LIBERTY
Re: Warning:
Low Battery, “Can’t Figure Us Out”:
Loretta, you ask why Americans are so violently and maliciously against providing care for those who can’t afford insurance. Alas, you have swallowed the spin of the left hook, line and sinker.
This has nothing to do with opposition to providing people health insurance or health care. Nothing. It is about power, pure and simple.
Let’s take the (purposely inflated) 47 million who supposedly don’t have health insurance. By the time you eliminate the illegal aliens, who shouldn’t be entitled to anything by taxpayers, those who are temporarily between jobs and those under 30 who would rather spend their money on things other than health insurance premiums, you are down to less than 15 million uninsured. These numbers have been public for some time and I am frankly surprised you haven’t seen them before. They are not in dispute.
So, for the sake of 5% of the population we are going to have a government takeover of all health care costs in America? Really? Does that make sense to you?
While you may have a private insurance/government partnership in New Zealand, a public option here will over time eliminate all private insurance in America. THAT’S what people are objecting to.
frost| 8.20.09 @ 8:23AM
Apropos of nothing, except the many previous references to “Atlas Shrugged” a few months ago, Heinlein wrote a book entitled “Friday” 25 or so years ago, and it’s a fun yarn, ‘til you get to the meat on pages 236-7, 240-1-2. That’s where he gets in a very Ayn Rand type message.
Be warned, however, you uber-Christians who frown on anything sexual; you won’t want to even skim the first half…
My thanks to our Rochester correspondent, Mr. Kessel, for his reminder about Heinlein’s writings; I didn’t stop with “Job” but ordered a few others I’d missed. This was one of ‘em. But, anti-sex zealots, beware!
KyMouse| 8.20.09 @ 8:48AM
Frost, I don't know any "uber-Christians who frown on anything sexual." I do know lots of Christians (sinners who have gratefully accepted Jesus' payment for their sins) who understand that God blesses sex not for selfish hook-ups or one-night-stands, but for commitment in marriage between a man and woman who respect and love each other.
I don't know any Christians who think that sex itself is bad or dirty (Catholics, you know, traditionally have lots of kids), but I know plenty who think that the way our society has demeaned sex is. Think about the violent way we talk about sex -- someone got "nailed" or "hit on." Sexual behavior in America today has plenty of catastrophic outcomes -- adultery, divorce, rape, incest, abortion. Every Christian I know does indeed frown on those consequences of "recreational" sex in all its guises.
Anastasia Mather| 8.20.09 @ 9:11AM
Dear Mr. Frost:
Contrary to your comment, Christians are NOT anti-sex. We just believe (and have ample medical and other evidence to believe so) that sex is not a trifle and that people are not toys to be used and discarded. We believe that sex is too important to be diddled with (pardon the pun), and that it has its reasons and functions that should be respected.
Just because Mr. Heinlein (who was a brilliant author) thinks people can just do the deed with anyone without consequence doesn't mean he's right about it. There is too much history and observation to prove him wrong.
And please remember - he died from a disease that made him lose his mind. His last few novels were incomprehensible, with or without the sex. Yes. I read them all.
frost| 8.20.09 @ 9:47AM
My point was, SOME may be offended with some of the ingredients -- which is why I suggested skipping to the aforementioned pages. That's all.
KyMouse| 8.20.09 @ 9:50AM
Frost, I forgot to mention the lovely consequences of "free love" that take the form of sexually transmitted diseases. About one in four young women has one; there are around 2.8 million new cases of chlamydia each year; 700,000 new cases of gonorrhea; and nearly half of all African-Americans are infected with genital herpes (and about one in five Americans over the age of 11). There are an estimated 1 million Americans who have HIV/AIDS, and as many as 30 percent of them were infected as teenagers.
By the way, do you have a young daughter? If so, would you be thrilled if some guy "nailed" her for his entertainment? Would you object to a pedophile stalking your little boy? Hey, only someone who is anti-sex would be upset, right?
KyMouse| 8.20.09 @ 9:54AM
Frost, what you wrote was, "you uber-Christians who frown on anything sexual" and "anti-sex zealots, beware." Such characterizations deserved to be challenged. I'm glad to hear that you didn't mean them the way they sounded.
JerseyJ| 8.20.09 @ 10:50AM
C. Kenna Amos Jr. ... "I heard an ABC News radio spot that reported that Obama had spoken, by telephone conference, with certain "religious" leaders today and asked them to help him get Obamacare -- whatever that is -- passed"
To clarify this ... the Whitehouse initiated the conference call and the group of religious "leaders" in question is actually Faith in Public Life ... a seriously left-leaning progressive organization who's Board Members include two Fellows from the Center for American Progress.
As with all things Obama, this was merely a staged event and truly not a representation of the views of religious leaders in America.
Appleby| 8.20.09 @ 11:26AM
Mr. Heinlein had a fixation on incest which he brazenly added to virtually every novel he ever wrote. Apparently either he was having sex with his mother or he wanted to.
I have read most of his books and skipped a good deal of the sexual content, not because I am an "uber-Christians who frown on anything sexual," but because I find incest disgusting.
IMKessel| 8.20.09 @ 11:43AM
Heinlein was very deliberate in his tweaking the blue noses of anyone who was anti-sexuality. He purposely took his arguments to the absurd.
Although Lazarus Long of 1941 may have shrunk from sex with a fairly distant descendant, by Time Enough for Love (1973) he has abandoned such compunctions with gusto. As Ronald Sarti has observed, "the theme of incest runs...deeply through the novel...in...unique variations" (131). According to Lazarus, "any sexual act is moral or immoral by precisely the same laws of morality as any other human act; all other rules about sex are simply customs... (170). As if to prove the point, he finally lets himself be convinced to make love to the twin sisters cloned from him, "the prettiest, sexiest—and bitchiest—broads [he has] ever seen" (449). Though they convince him with the slippery logic that "Coupling with us might be masturbation, but it can't be incest because we aren't your sisters" (448), Heinlein conveniently seems to forget that their relationship is closer; after all, despite the genetics, by way of emotional relationship they are not his sisters but his daughters. Then, after traveling back in time two thousand years, he realizes with some surprise that he "ha[s] fallen in love with [his] mother" on the very first night of meeting her; "he [has] never in all his lives been so unbearably attracted, so sexually obsessed, by any woman any where or when" (487-88). Because Lazarus claims that "incest [is] a religious concept, not a scientific one..." the thought of that "tribal taboo" makes his mother seem "more enticingly forbidden (if such were possible!)" (489-90). His mother agrees, and despite believing that Lazarus is her half-brother, she has no scruple about making love with him (551). Lazarus is continually "startled" and "delighted" by her audacity (542).
http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/works/articles/Parenting.html
Heinlein’s intent was to have people question their underlying assumption that accompanied morality. He was clearly anti-religion in the same way he opposed any thinking that was not based on critical analysis. Heinlein saw that the masses simply accepted “truths” without bothering to think about them. If Heinlein were around today he would be appalled by the initial love affair the American public had with Obama. (Descartes wrote, "Cognito ergo sum," (I think, therefore, I am." Sadly, the reverse is not always true -- I don't think so, therefore, I am no longer. The heard is often culled by its own stupidity, but non-thinking is more prevalent than thinking.)
Not all Christians are against sexuality, but the root of Christianity is highly influenced (via Paul) by Hellenistic thought. Christianity holds a bifurcation of body/spirit. “The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.” The body is, at best, temporary. Further it is through the body that the spirit is tempted. This dualism brings many Christians to the idea to the idea that sexuality is, if not bad, certainly “dirty.” Further, for many Christians, the act of conception is “corrupt” because it is a bodily function, hence the name “original sin.” Lastly, this dualism is not found in Judaism. Jews celebrate the body and spirit together. Sexuality, in the proper context, is highly enjoyed and celebrated. In fact, this holds true for the majority of religions. Heinlein missed this point and by attacking all dogmatic thinking, he was not completely thoughtful in his attack on religion in general.
While I do not personally share Heinlein’s anti-religious views, they were consistent with his embracing and espousing Objectivism/Egoism of Ayn Rand.
Frost, you are God. But aren’t we all?
PS All people posting their intrusive ads, please understand the readers here resent your presence and we will not visit your sites. Your behavior is self-defeating, and that is very much against the thinking of those who read this site.
IMKessel| 8.20.09 @ 11:46AM
Please note, that the words between “although” and “(452).” are not mine but come directly from the web site posted.
Thank you.
frost| 8.20.09 @ 12:21PM
Guess it's been noted -- was not accusing all Christians of intolerance about sex, only those where applicable. For example, “FocusOnTheFamily” head James Dobson was a prime backer for “Operation Rescue” and Randall Terry (who did not just confine himself to picketing abortion clinics) but called the pill/IUD "disgusting" and would outlaw them if he could. Terry has been quoted as being opposed to all forms of birth control and would eliminate them, if that were in his power, saying: "Ultimately, my goal is to reform this culture. The arts, the media, the entertainment, the sciences, education, etc." Obviously, he wants the church (himself?) in control of it all. He called Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood a "whore". Said Joel Sheidler, another anti-choice activist: "I think conception is disgusting; people using each other for pleasure". Seems as if those negative sex attitudes which began in the Spanish Inquisition (church) continue in some quarters even today...... and, it might be said: Sexual Repression Causes Perversion.
Soooo, guess it's that old "if the shoe fits..."
And, thank you again, Ira.
Brittanicus| 8.20.09 @ 3:46PM
We should clog the switchboards in Washington at 202-224-3121, with our anger and frustration, as this is the only thing our legislators seem to understand. Hundreds and thousands, perhaps millions have already bombarded the politicians who are pandering only to corporate welfare and not the 9.5 percent of jobless American workers. E-verify has literary risen from the grave because we have pressured the morons in the Capitol. We must neither let them weaken the NO-MATCH-LETTER or police enforcement 287 G, not whittle away at the lightening raids of ICE. However, we should adjoin rescinding the misinterpreted birthright citizenships or anchor babies. law.American workers have a significant roll to play in contacting ICE if they hear or see illegal activity in the workplace.
Read many undisclosed facts at the HERITAGE FOUNDATION AND NUMBERSUSA. I anticipate this is a ominous beginning to set the American people up for another AMNESTY? The 1986 didn't work and was subject to massive corruption and fraud. What makes them think in Congress, that this will not turn into a irreversible travesty. Illegal immigrants already receive free health care in emergency hospitals and already costing taxpayers billions--so they are not going to participate in a public option? We must remove the illegal immigrants from the workplace methodically and leave our nation, so American jobless can step into that niche?
Daisy| 8.20.09 @ 4:25PM
Jen, NEWSFLASH!! You democrats have a huge majority in the House and the Senate and don't need Republicans! So stop whining and pass the damn thing already!
And good luck to you Liberals if you do. You're gonna need it! :)
Angel| 8.20.09 @ 4:27PM
Oh no! The terror twins frost and Kessel are back.
Bar the door!
IMKessel| 8.20.09 @ 4:54PM
Terror Twins? Frosty and me?
Dear heavens, what have WE done -- now?
cuban pete| 8.20.09 @ 5:17PM
frost & Kessel!! I love you guys.
frost| 8.20.09 @ 5:34PM
Hmpffff -- (leave me out of it, I din't do nutin')...