Reader Mail
Hospice Talk
Nurse Biffy replies. Freedom vs. Kiwicare. Robert Novak. Imaginary Republicans. Plus more.
(Page 2 of 3)
You see, we already have an example of what government controlled healthcare looks like. It's called Medicare. The government controls costs by cutting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. More and more doctors are refusing to take on new Medicare recipients because they can't afford them. The result? Some senior citizens are now finding it increasingly difficult to even find a doctor that will treat them.
Once the government has control of all healthcare costs, it can control all aspects of our lives. You smoke? Sorry, but your healthcare costs too much. We won't pay. A bit overweight? Well, when you drop those 25 pounds THEN come back and see us. Maybe we will then reconsider paying for that knee replacement you need. Heart disease? Well, it's your fault because you ate the wrong things. Sorry, but we're going to limit what we can do for you. After all, we only have so much money to spend.
The left in this country has been salivating for 5 decades to get government-run healthcare. They are very, very close to getting it. THAT's what has got everyone up in arms.
I don't know whether what you say about your medical care in New Zealand is true or not. Too be honest, I am highly skeptical. No doubt, the Canadians and the Brits would be too. After all, they already are under socialized medicine. As someone once asked, if America gets socialized medicine, where with the Canadians go for medical care then?
So, Loretta, this is not about people wanting to deny other people medical insurance. It never was. It is about the extreme left in this country wanting control over every aspect of our lives. America was never founded on those principles and did not prosper under those principles. Those of us opposed to Obamacare want to keep our freedom and liberty.
Freedom and liberty. THAT's what this is all about. It's not
about denying other people health insurance or health care. And
it never was, either.
-- Carol Hellman
THE 'CUSE CONVERSION
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.'s, Robert
Novak, RIP:
Thank you, Mr. Tyrrell, for your succinct yet potent rendering of Bob Novak, one of my all-time favorite commentators.
The telling of the Jewish Mr. Novak's conversion story never ceases to grip me. How interesting it would be to hear the story as told by the Syracuse coed herself who had the exchange with Bob, but, then again, maybe it's all lost on her; it would seem that the Holy Spirit's emphasis would be results, rather than methods.
Oh, and, much as I greatly admired him, Mr. Novak was hardly
unusual in the higher esteem in which he held athletes and
coaches over politicians!
-- Francis M. Hannon, Jr.
Melrose, Massachusetts
Kudos and affectionate remembrances are pouring forth from many sources upon the occasion of Mr. Novak's passing. And I suppose those who knew the man personally and are familiar with his body of work have much to wistfully recall. However, his handling of the last nationally significant story of his career leaves me with a very bitter taste. He knew from the beginning of the Plamegate nonsense and the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald that the White House was not the source for his story. He could have early on set the story straight without revealing his source. He didn't. The question is, why?
Whether he was told by Fitzgerald to keep his mouth shut, or felt the Bush Administration should do some squirming for policies Novak did not agree with, or for some other personal or professional reason, I've no idea. But when the Senate Intelligence Committee report came out just about a year after the article that sparked the fire that the Valerie Plame issue became, Novak should have pulled the plug on the whole affair. That report, signed by all committee members including all the Democrats, totally debunks Joseph C. Wilson IV's assertions regarding the results of his trip, the reason for his selection, and his knowledge of the "forged" document that was part of the controversy. But Novak was silent; Fitzgerald's performance would continue for another two+ years, and the intense -- though manufactured -- controversy surrounding the issue Novak had inadvertently created, would sap support for the Iraq War and the President who had launched that effort. Bush II is a big boy and should have been able to defend himself. But he didn't. Perhaps Novak should have spent more time on that "story."
Whatever else of importance or worth that he may have done during
his long career, Mr. Novak took the answers to some significant
questions with him to the grave.
-- Dennis Sevakis
Bloomfield, Michigan
"On the one matter that temporarily ended our friendship he was proved wrong or at least sort of wrong. When that became apparent to him he suggested we dine and smoke the peace pipe. He admitted he had been wrong. I insisted that he had only been a bit wrong. Our friendship was renewed. In all my years as an editor I have only known one other acquaintance to come forward and admit to being wrong."
RET, please write further on these events.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (24) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Articles From Reader Mail
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/20/power-pure-and-simple
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Bowling Alone
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- Progressive Derangements
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
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')...