Re: W. James Antle, III's McCain's Immigration Two-Step:
McCain's disingenuousness on this issue, more than any other, exemplifies precisely why I, as a true conservative, would not consider voting for him.
McCain asks La Raza for its trust on this issue, which is altogether fitting because he has earned its trust on amnesty for illegal immigrants.
But he hasn't earned mine.
To the contrary, this time last year many of us were very concerned that the Kennedy-McCain bill would be passed and signed by the President, as he promised to do.
And now, the co-author of this terrible legislation is the titular leader of the party with which I have identified for the last 35 years.
No mas, Senator McCain.
Neither you nor the Republican Party represents my interests.
You may be acceptable to the neocons, but not to me, amigo.
-- Christopher A. Hall
How does one say "pandering" in Spanish? Or Arabic, for that matter? Do "conservative" Americans care about the future of this nation under the presumed leadership of the GOP candidate, assuming he could win the November election? I, for one, am not convinced that many do. It speaks volumes that the GOP, a party that has, for nearly twenty years, lost its conservative way, now endorses the perfect example of such meanderings as its presidential nominee.
Signor Antle has enumerated sufficiently the inherent contradictions to be located within the body of John McCain's talk to La Raza, but one must still wonder if his appearance before this, or any other soon-to-be formed ethnic or religious organization, will become de rigueur for all presidential candidates in the future, thereby demonstrating support of multicultural diversity of these United States? In this specific case, our senatorial Solon from Arizona spoke to a group that sees nothing wrong in abolishing national boundaries - so long as they are U.S. borders - and for the US taxpayer to subsidize LaRaza's and other Latino organizations' flagrant, willful advocacy of violation of enforcement of current immigration law. "We can't let immigrants break our laws with impunity," McCain intoned during his talk. Could have fooled me: I thought every action that he, and his like-minded mentor in the White House, has advocated over the past three years gave every indication that breaking the law was "no problema." To be direct, albeit uncharitable, every word McCain uttered during his talk to this august group about enforcement of those laws and securing our borders will be proven to be a bold-faced lie: and that includes the "ands," "ifs" and "buts." Straight Talk Express, indeed!
I have, perhaps with too much force, written repeatedly on this webzine about McCain's Janus-faced stance in dealing with illegal immigration. To his Arizona constituents, so seriously afflicted by the ravages of illegal immigration, he would "...build the ********* fence," but to organizations such as LaRaza and other similarly minded groups, these words are never considered, forget uttered. The GOP presumptive candidate knows full well that state officials have, as a result of the damages done in Arizona, instituted a very thorough local/state crack down in dealing with illegal immigration, knowing that Washington will do nothing but window dressing enforcement in this matter. By his previous actions, viz., proposing two amnesties, McCain believes he can, "...earn the trust..." and coax enough Latinos to vote for him. What our senatorial Solon knows -- or should -- is that Senator Obama, "a fine man" to McCain, can, and will, outpander him, and if a recent Zogby poll is any indicator, Obama is the greatly favored choice of the folks at the LaRaza convention, despite McCain's alcahuetria, which is Spanish for pandering. Yet, McCain, along with Don Quijote, persists in his delusional quests.
In the end, a fair indicator of McCain's chances of winning in November will depend on enough "conservatives," believing that an Obama presidency will seriously damage this country, who will take the lesser of the two evils approach. Fair enough. But in so doing, conservatives will help the GOP to continue to wander in the desert, perhaps for the Biblical forty years, for the party leadership will roll over and play dead as President McCain helps to destroy what remains of the conservative movement in the land. Call me unrealistic and/or naive, but I cannot pull the GOP lever in November. Neither should any conservative.
-- Vincent Chiarello
I think the greatest failure of the immigration reform debate is that we have failed to see the real problems. First, we don't to reform illegal immigration, we need to reform legal immigration. The United States continues to be the shining city on the hill, and people still want to come here. We need both skilled and unskilled workers to fill jobs. Why can't we open our boards, in the legal sense, to greater immigration? The greatest reason for such high levels of illegal immigrants is because it's just so complicated, confusing, and nigh impossible to enter legally. This needs reformation.
Despite my conservative tendencies, I agree with most of what McCain has been saying lately on immigration. We need to focus on enforcement first. That's the only 'reform' we need on illegal immigration. But then we do need to find a way to accommodate more immigrants, allow more in every year legally. And we need to come up with humane means of handling the millions here. They are, after all, still human. They are still endowed by their Creator with certain, inalienable rights. And we must remain true to our founding principles and treat them in such a manner that their rights are respected. We still need to focus on assimilation and making them productive American citizens, but we can do this in a humane fashion. It is both logistically difficult and inhumane to attempt to deport more than thirteen million people. While we are working out how to approach this issue, we have to keep this mind.
If McCain remains true to the methods he now advocates, and that is a big if, then he's on the right path. And I think he'll deserve our support and the support of Hispanic conservatives. All the same, we will have to keep him on this path now and in the future.
-- Charles Campbell
Mr. Antle correctly portrays McLame's predicament on immigration. He's placed himself on the horns of a dilemma from which he cannot climb down.
One horn is the conservative base, which (rightly) understands that he has absolutely no interest in truly securing our borders. His only interest is in "doing the right thing," as he sees it, by legalizing 20 million illegal aliens. He is so dedicated to this proposition that there is nothing, anywhere, that will dissuade him. Unfortunately for conservatives, we have no attractive alternative, so we are placed in a position of having to vote for a RINO who we know in advance is going to knife us in the back on this issue.
The other horn is the Democrat party, which is enthusiastic in supporting an open southern border, with NO border enforcement. What they see is the potential for 40 or 50 million new Democrat voters, something that could insure their stay in power far into the foreseeable future.
On this issue, McLame cannot win. He can't outbid the Dems, who are more than willing to go "all in" on this one and he cannot persuade conservatives who know that he is no different from the Dems on immigration.
The real loser is what used to be known as the culture of America. These new resident aliens are not assimilating and they have no interest in becoming Americans. They want to retain their cultural distinctives and/or change American culture. The folks at La Raza and LULAC are actively opposed to assimilation. "Assimilation" to them equals racism. If you think 40 or 50 million unassimilated aliens won't fundamentally alter life in this country, you haven't been paying attention.
But, in his speech to La Raza, McLame assured them he was going to "work hard to win their votes." Translation: "I'm willing to sell this country down the river in order to get elected President."
-- Keith Kunzler
Obama runs hard left then feints right. McCain shifts left and goes for the center. Is this a broken field run for the goal line or do these men even have core beliefs? Maybe some day politicians will realize the general public can tell the difference between making subtle and nuanced realignments of policies because they are not sustainable in the real world and blatant pandering. That may be the day after the shiftless, ethics-free, pork slinging pols are held accountable. Sadly, come November 5th, one panderer or the other will probably be elected. (Sorry, Mr. Barr, even the most die hard Libertarians see you taking this one all-the-way.)
If the voting public doesn't get this one right, America might just become something much worse than a busted play; it could end up a broken dream.
-- Ira M. Kessel
Rochester, New York
"Some people in the La Raza audience seemed to reject the idea that there should be any immigration enforcement at all."
Why is he even talking to these people? And why does he feel he owes something to anyone other than American citizens and legal residents?
-- D. Moroco
LOSING IT AT THE NEW YORKER
Re: George Neumayr's Progressive Cover:
Perfectly conceived and written -- in this stranger's (to you) opinion. Not a word out of place. Clear and simple (not simplistic). Just right.
My compliments, indeed!
-- William Kohn
Los Angeles, California
Listening to the Roundtable discussion about the New Yorker front page on CNN yesterday depicting Obama and his wife as Muslim radicals, I was intrigued by James Carville's response. First he saw nothing wrong with it, just satire says he. Second he seemed to know a lot about who works at the New Yorker and who runs the publication.
So far as I know, he is still in Hillary's camp and the thought hit me that the supposedly satirical front page may have been a hit job from Hillary, blowing the Obama campaign their version of a kiss. The emphasis on Black Muslim radicals is the line Bill Clinton and Mrs. Clinton pushed from the start of their primary campaign.
There is talk that Hillary will try again at the convention to get the nomination. Making the Clintons go away is like cleaning "Krazy Glue" off your fingers.
-- Howard Lohmuller
A very savvy article by Mr. Neumayr. He's right on the mark when he describes these folks as cocooned. I'd use the word clueless. What we have here is a combination of the stupid (MSM), the obsessed (ideologue leftists), and the elites (Obama supporters), all attempting to advance the agenda, but in inept ways, that should have derailed the Obama juggernaut by now. Although there is significant overlap in all three camps, nonetheless, it's no wonder that the good leftist elites at the New Yorker were blindsided by criticism from the Obama campaign and the rest of the MSM. After all, in today's grim world of leftist determination, to finally deliver its brand of socialism to America, humor, satire, and especially the truth, have no place.
Ferraro, unwittingly stumbled over the Democrat's pecking order of aggrieved groups, in their deck of politically correct playing cards. A black inexperienced king still trumps the white entitled queen. Those clever sophisticates at the New Yorker, with their smug humor, aimed at us conservative rubes, once again, pulled at the scab on the life of the Obama's, that has many on the left in a state of panic. Now, if only we had a candidate capable of taking advantage of all these gifts the left has handed him.
-- A. DiPentima
I found the cover to be amusing myself. And while I could immediately recognize that they were attempting to satire the supposedly 'right-wing' disinformation campaign against Obama, they surely had to realize just how close some of their depictions came to the real deal. Mr. Neumayr outlines several of these pretty well in his article and I will not reiterate those points.
But I will say this: The Obama campaign has overreacted to any criticism. They will continue to do so throughout this campaign, and we can only hope that their overreactions will be seen for what they are, which is a diversionary tactic. If the New Yorker is truly left-wing, I'm willing to bet that they created this cover just so they could create some more diversion and faux-controversy to distract all of us from Obama's main theme: Liberalism you don't want.
The whole campaign makes me think of Rod Stewart... 'If I listen long enough to you...'
-- Charles Campbell
Leftist/liberal pubs like the New Yorker have reached that same level of arrogance as Obama and his handlers: They assumed that everyone would immediately see the satire.
This is yet another example of how the lust of the left and their current standard bearer to be in power seems to make them not just more ignorant, but stupid.
Thing is, there's a cure for ignorance.
-- C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia
More evidence that lefties, i.e. so-called progressives, have no life and absolutely no sense of humor. One could bet that if it were McCain, Bush or any Repub or Conservative, nothing would have been said against it.
-- D. Moroco
Isn't it funny how the left's view of the right is always an offensive caricature? The New York tourism people must be almost as upset as the Obama campaign, years of combating the image of New Yorkers as offensive undermined by a stupid offensive cover on "The New Yorker."
But the Obama campaign is upset about more than the offense. They have been so carefully laying false trails over pointless discrepancies that lead to questions over Obama and his wife, so they can depict the conservatives, who get all hot and bothered trying to follow these bread crumbs, as outrageously offensive, so that they can tar McCain with the same brush. And all of that has been undermined by a far less subtle attempt to do the very same. Now these conservatives can say that the Obama campaign and its "willing accomplices in the drive by media," phrase on loan from Rush, have an outrageously false picture of them.
Upset that Obama will call you a bigot if you say his middle name? Worried about the status of his birth certificate? Heard the rumor that there is a tape of his wife saying outrageous things? That all came to us from the left. The first was from Obama himself. But the last item is very instructive. It came from an avid left wing supporter of Hillary. Nobody knew about it until an Obama campaign representative went on Fox News to put it down. Funny though, he did not go on the other channels. Once they knew about it, conservative commentators discussed both the accusation and the denial. The Obama campaign then released a web site smearing those commentators for attacking his wife. Then all those other fine upstanding media channels set about attacking the behavior of the commentators for their outrageous behavior, never actually blaming the real source on the left, nor mentioning that the Obama campaign had intentionally made it a news item.
These are just a few of the snares that have been left for Obama's opponents. All intentionally designed to do the very same thing the New Yorker was attempting, to smear conservatives. The main difference is the campaign is trying to trick conservatives into crossing the line of accepted behavior, but the New Yorker has crossed that line themselves and is dancing on the wrong side. The campaign was setting up the press so that it could do the smear yet act impartial. Report on Obama's being offended, use the conservative's words against them, and omit the background. But the press, being partisan, couldn't leave well enough alone, and tried to blatantly drive the point home. The trap has been sprung before it could do damage. Worse, the media has been discredited, future accusations can be portrayed as just more of the same, and the conservatives can be as outraged and offended as Obama is.
I hope that one of these days, the public is going to realize that the left is running one of the biggest hypocritical double standards around. They can say anything about conservatives, no matter how untrue, just to make conservatives look bad, but even true things can't be mentioned about liberals if it makes the liberals look bad. This has been going on longer than I have been alive, so maybe the press will change before the public catches on.
-- James Bailey
I am not sure of the magazine editor's interpretation of the cover as satire aimed at us unsophisticates. After all, Obama belonged for most of his adult life to a revolutionary racist "church." His close personal friends for many years have been domestic terrorists and Palestinian "charity" organizations. He wants to sit down with Ahmadinejad to "negotiate" the demise of Israel. According to the Quran edicts, a son of a Muslim father must be killed if the former abandons the faith -- there must be a "fatwa" to that effect somewhere. And in a few days Abu Hussein will visit Ramallah for private talks with Palestinian terrorists. So where exactly is that "satire" in the New Yorker magazine cover?
-- Marc Jeric
Las Vegas, Nevada
Why is it that only radical Muslims get upset with political/satirical cartoons?
-- Brian Busse
El Paso, Texas
WHO GOES AROUND
Re: Jeffrey Lord's Obama Lies:
Brilliant, Jeffrey, brilliant. Now if they will only say, "damn the Tupolev, full speed ahead."
-- Jim Jackson
As always, the Bible has a trenchant version of the Tupelov story.
"He who digs a pit for others will fall into it himself (Prov.26:27)."
The older I get, the happier I am that I spent 3 years at Bible College. I wonder if Reverends Wright and Jack$on ever stumbled across that verse?
-- Kate Shaw
"On issue after issue, whether confessing to a mistake or tailoring his latest position for political effect ("moving to the center" is what they call this in political lingo), Obama's words are now increasingly being received as bald untruths."
Câ€™mon, Jeffrey, you can say it: The arrogant, narcissistic, empty suit from Chicago's words are rightfully being received as "bald-faced lies."
By the way, the self-directed torpedo of the leftists, liberals and Democrats has already hit the ship Obama and detonated well below the waterline. While it's sinking fast, the ship's not completely at the bottom yet.
But it will be. Soon. And not even Capt.-- sorry, Admiral of All the Fleets That Ever Sailed -- Obama can stop that final descent.
-- C. Kenna Amos
Princeton, West Virginia
As of 7/15/08, at 3:12 AM CST, the act of googling "Obama lies" gets you 81,800 hits; googling the string "Obama lies" WITHOUT quotation marks gets you 11,800,000 hits. Mr. Lord's article on your site, dated 7/15/08, claims that googling "Obama lies" gets you "thirteen million" hits. So let's say Mr. Lord's version of Google gets a few more hits than mine, but is otherwise accurate, and that Mr. Lord's figures come from googling word strings without enclosing quotation marks. If this is the case, then how do we make sense of his claim that the phrase "McCain lies" gets only 213,000 hits? I just googled "McCain lies" two minutes ago and got 7,400,000 hits! I believe Mr. Lord is lying, in an article about lying!
Please rectify this.
-- Jason Vieyra-Preston
Junction City, Kansas
The very essence of Obama is a lie living a lie: he's not honestly black; he entered Harvard dishonestly as an affirmative action candidate; his affected superiority complex is a lie to cover his inferiorities.
The truth about Barry is his spectacular dancing ability: A complex footwork incorporating Tap, the Hustle, the Cakewalk and Whirling Dervish, in an attempt to out spin the lies -- all accompanied by the media's version of a Dance of the Seven Veils.
Poor McCain: all he can manage is the Shuffle!
-- Wolf Terner
Fair Lawn, New Jersey
A MAMET EFFORT
Re: Shawn Macomber's Mametfest Destiny:
It was delightful reading Shawn Macomber's piece on the transformation of David Mamet's thinking from arch liberal to the more traditional conservative. To think that one can simply live their way to such enlightenment requires no stretch of the imagination at all. That any liberal over the age of 40 and certainly by age 60 has not had this same transforming experience is the true anomaly.
I mean, why would anyone floating in the middle of an ocean persistently work at destroying the very life preserver that sustains them simply because it has a few flaws. Of course liberals would argue that that is not what they are doing. They're just trying to FIXIT!
-- Jim Jackson
COMPARE WITH CAPTAIN PLANET
Re: James Bowman's "Wall-E":
I ride the subway to work every morning, and judging by the number of Wireheads who scatter their drink cups, half-chewed breakfast bits, banana peels, newspapers, candy wrappers and other garbage broadcast behind them (I even saw one wire head girl toss her garbage onto a seat directly under a poster begging people to stop inundating the trains with garbage), I would say that megalomaniacal wirehead nerds are 90% of the problem, and no part of the solution.
And the Axiom is just a luxury version of Mama's basement, where life is provided for them on a snack tray and somebody else (Wall E as Mama) picks up the trash.
-- Kate Shaw
Dear Professor Bowman,
No, tell us really. How did you like the movie? From your disapproving recreation of its chronology to your analysis of the degradation of butane lighter fuel to your denigration of the movie's heroes (especially the chubby captain who helps save the day), it seems that you are taking this thing far too seriously. It's just a cartoon! Everything in it is exaggerated -- that's how cartoons work. It is not some rabid environmentalist screed against drilling in ANWR.
Perhaps the trouble is, you're taking it too personally. Your repeated references to 2001: A Space Odyssey betray your hidden agenda. You haven't forgiven HAL-3000 for what it tried to do to your Uncle Dave, have you, Professor Bowman? We can therefore forgive your antipathy towards the megalomaniacal navigation system on the Axiom. But Wall-E was a nice little computer. Couldn't you find a soft place in your heart for him?
I'm not asking anything for the cockroach, of course.
-- J.L. Schallert
I pity James Bowman. To be a movie critic and have to endure something he obviously hates. I think you should take him off the hook and find a critic that actually likes movies.
-- Craig Marshall
FEEL THE CHILL
Re: Garry Greenwood's letter (under "Cold Frost") in Reader Mail's Fun in the Sun:
In answer to Mr. Greenwood's question, as a Libertarian-leaning Independent, no (a resounding NO, in fact!), I do not support the government funding of abortions (nor the government funding of too many other things as well).
Then, for Mr. Arand and others who insist that any interruption of a conception is "killing a human life," consider: the egg comes down the Fallopian Tube and doesn't place/set itself within the membranes/walls of the uterus for 3-4 days.
An embryo or fetus is not an "unborn child" for quite a while -- a protoplasm-of-potential, and a viable being. I read in one of those national publications that the Central Nervous System doesn't exist until the 6th to 8th week, a time when most feel abortions are certainly permissible. A 'beating heart' does not mean "life" (which is why many adults sign Living Wills). A three-day-old human embryo is a collection of just 150 cells, that's all...It's called a blastocyst. For the sake of comparison, there are more than 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly.
The Freedom to Choose might mean that hardship -- the prolonged suffering of unwanted children, and extreme emotional stress (of both mother/child) can be eliminated.
That said, isn't it interesting how the "Pro-Life" people aren't necessarily for ALL life - - most are for the death penalty (as am I) -- but, it's ironic, 'ay?
Frost, you confuse "right" with "consequence." I have a right to "keep and bear arms" and to that end have a right to defend myself with deadly force where required. That right, being I'm "pro gun" in some people's minds does not give me the right to kill for convenience sake or on a whim. That is the essence of abortion on demand. It is 98% killing for mere convenience sake. Pregnancy is not a disease, a pest or even a serious health risk under normal circumstances. You don't catch a "pregnancy" from touching a door knob, someone spraying you with their germs in a cough or washing your underwear with someone of the opposite sex. The "choice" to get pregnant was made in advance by the one that you say has a right to do with their body as they see fit. Under that reasoning, prostitution is certainly legal, taking a dump in public is legal and walking around naked too. The list is endless with that line of reasoning. I have a right to do many things in my best interest but I'm not free of the harmful consequences just because.
The consequence here is "death" not the freedom to make a viable choice. That choice was already made when said party engaged in sexual intercourse that has the consistent habit of producing pregnancy short of making a "choice" to prevent said pregnancy in the first place. Some might even call this being responsible.
The Pro Abortion side of this argument defends partial birth abortion on the same grounds that you do. Please tell me the difference between pulling an unborn child partially out of the womb to kill it and doing so 9 months after said child escapes the womb alive? What legal principle can you point to that says one is bad and the other dandy? From a very pragmatic view point, if it is fine and dandy that unborn children be killed at the moment of escape from the womb then what would you have to say to someone that killed your children because it was their "right" to not be inconvenienced by them? How do to you square your view with the father of said soon to be murdered unborn child that does not share the mother's view of her right of convenience to her life?
If the convenience of the mother is all that matters in our legal frame work, there is no legal restraint on killing all the minor children of said mother if she sees it as an inconvenience to her life. Children have no more viability outside the womb then inside the womb without constant care by someone for years. It is not nor ever been about the health of the mother. It is all about sanctioning irresponsible behavior, sweeping it under the rug and gaining political power from that. You ask "What is there about the word "choice" that the extreme right fails to grasp?" I would ask you what is it about murder of innocent life for mere convenience or avoidance of responsibility you don't grasp?
No more or less.
-- Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia
VAST RIGHT-WING HYPOCRISY
Re: Martin Owens' letter (under "Gamble Free or Die") in Reader Mail's Fun in the Sun:
Mr. Owens makes a very good point about the anti-gambling legislation on the federal books. How exactly does one justify that you're average Voter can be trusted to cast his or her vote for the correct candidate but can't be trusted to gamble within their means? Actually, the whole question of 'trust' strikes right at the heart of the nanny-state mentality, and this returns me to some of the points I was making in my remarks on Barr's 'flip-flops'.
The Republican Party, and the conservative movement, are not free of their nanny-state initiatives. This is why the conservative movement cannot create and maintain a governing majority. We can probably all agree that things like single-payer healthcare and the banning of trans-fats and public smoking are nanny-state. Yet why can't we also agree that making drugs, gambling, and prostitution illegal are also part of the nanny-state? If we can trust the voter to choose the correct leader, why can we not also trust the voter to abstain from these products and services? How about the legal equating of a civil union between homosexuals with a union between heterosexuals? Or for that matter, the whole state issued marriage license, which is the heart of that argument.
Do we begin to see the hypocrisy of the arguments offered from many on the right? We don't like the nanny-state. Really, we don't... well, unless it's advocating those positions with which we agree. This position is not only inconsistent but it also opens the right up to a great lever of ridicule and makes people who would normally be quick to vote for and support the conservative movement shy away. After all, either we trust the people, or we do not.
-- Charles Campbell
HEY, KID, LOOKIN' FOR SOME ACTION?
Re: Eli Lehrer's The Risks of Gambling Regulation:
"Other than the horseracing sites -- which serve an almost exclusively American clientele -- there are no American gambling sites to sanction."
This is not even close to true, there are literally dozens of U S based Internet gambling sites that are ignored.
A few examples:
1. World Winner -- available directly or via AOL -- offers CARD, Board, puzzle and other games for free and by wager (cash). Marketed right next to and includes children's games.
OWNED BY Liberty Media the same group that owns NewsCorp (Fox News and the Atlanta Braves baseball team).
2. SpadeClub.com -- a subscription tournament poker site 9one of perhaps two dozen based in the U.S.).
There are many others, these are but a few. The common thread, the Federal Trade Commission already regulates "skill" games and sweepstakes. No one in the DoJ, FSRB or Treasury seems to recognize this as a way out of the pending E.U. case and the already lost Antigua Gaming case.
Include poker in the skill games (a card game) while allowing foreign markets access to horse racing and skill games and let that be that.
Our WTO obligations are met since there is a notation (Except Sporting) meaning sports teams.
Oops, sorry, government cannot do anything sensible and the easy way, if so they would actually solve problems and be left with nothing to do.
-- Dave "oldbookguy" Lester
Weston, West Virginia
THANK YOU, LARRY
Re: Lawrence Henry's A Sprint to a Transplant:
Larry Henry may never know of those he has helped with his informative articles told in layman's terms but with astonishing accuracy. As for his becoming a bore, he need never apologize for his interest in his own welfare and his determination to continue in the role of good husband, dedicated father, superb journalist and fine citizen.
It just makes sense to know as much about a disease as you can possibly unearth, because the average length of an office visit is never going to inform you.
I spent seventeen years of my older son's life fighting for information on Juvenile Rheumatoid Arthritis, beginning in 1957 when people thought it was an old folks' disease. He went undiagnosed for almost seven years because of the difficulty in identifying a collagen disease. Robbed of his childhood, but a success in life and father of a wonderfully healthy son he hesitated to bring into this world because of the hereditary factor of RA
A little over a year ago my husband had a dissecting aorta. I made it my business to see every CT scan of the aorta so I would know what we were dealing with if an 82-year-old man was to recover. He did. If I bored old folks with my descriptions of the severe backache radiating into the abdomen which precedes the dissection, so be it. I hope I may have saved a life with my description of my husband's symptoms that got me dialing 911 for immediate treatment, rather than rubbing BenGay on his back!
So, Larry, continue to take us along on your journey. You go with our prayers and best wishes. You give people with other medical challenges hope as you explore all avenues to a successful transplant.
-- Diane Smith