Who Runs the Country?

Yesterday I watched my usual selection of Sunday Morning Talking Head shows. I watched a few politicians be interviewed, but mostly it was conversation between political pundits and party strategists. Hmm. Who's minding the business of the people?

Today we're attempting to confirm a Supreme Court justice - which has, of late, turned into nothing more than a show for political posturing by both sides. Again ...who's minding the country?

Agendas abound! Pundits want more air time. Talking Head shows (both radio and television) want ratings. Elected officials want to get re-elected. Party strategists want to ensure their party wins the next election.

Who's minding the country?

Now really ... there's little doubt that Sotomayor will get confirmed, so why are the Republicans posturing? Is it for the good of the country, or the good of the vote count in their re-election runs? Democrats did it too, with Roberts - neither side is innocent, here! Is it too much to ask our politicians to do what we pay them to do? (For the record, OF COURSE we should have hearings! But they should be meaningful and productive, not the side-show they have become!!!)

I still say term limits would help with some of this.

As for the Talking Heads - I really wish they'd contribute to the conversation regarding "how ought we live" rather than stirring up misplaced passion in their listeners.

Just my two cents.

Chemo and Democrat Socialists

Let me start this post by saying that I am discussing medical treatment of a child. I am not saying one can “treat” a child however they want – tying them to beds, beating them, indentured servitude, etc. I am talking about medical treatment. Period. Ethics has a hard time keeping up with science. Science progresses rapidly; ethics needs lots of discussion. The basic question asked by Bioethics might be phrased as “just because we can, should we?” It is in that spirit that I continue this post.

- - - - -

While I listen to the RNC muse about “rebranding” the Democratic Party as the Democrat Socialist Party, I don’t hear anyone from the RNC (or the DNC, or Capitol Hill or the White House) being outraged that our government is hunting down yet another mother that refused chemotherapy for her minor child. This mother has chosen more natural treatment methods for her child’s cancer. Because of this she is on the run from law enforcement and will most likely have her child taken away when/if she is found. So I could translate this to mean that government stepping in to bail out companies in trouble, then demanding a little accountability for the use of taxpayer dollars, is not OK, but the government telling us how we must (medically) treat our children is just fine.

But wait! Children in Christian Scientist families are not required to have immunizations. Is this any more endangerment of a child than opting for other-than-chemo treatments? You say to yourself “Yes, but that’s because of religion”. Right you are! But if the child of a Jehovah’s Witness family needs a blood transfusion to prevent death, the courts will, at the request of the medical team, step in and always allow the blood transfusion. What happened to religion here?

The problem, of course, is the clashing of rights. The family has a right to provide their chosen form of medical treatment to their child until the right to life of the child becomes endangered. Should it be this way? Granted that denying the blood transfusion may result in the physical death of the child, but once given the transfusion, will the child suffer in other ways because the parents are certain that the child’s spiritual life is now gone? It must be tremendously difficult for parents to deny a life-saving blood transfusion to their child; the refusal of treatment doesn’t seem selfish – it seems based on their faith. Sticky wickets, yes?

The current case in the news can be easily found in Google, but here’s one article.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30824587/

Here is another article about Dax Cowart – a 25 year-old Vietnam Vet – who was also not allowed to make his own medical decisions. (This case is studied in just about any Bioethics class and covers many, many challenges that arise in conflicting medical treatment opinions.)
http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/tools/ceintro.html

And yet another article about 13 year-old Katie Wernecke, whose parents did not want her to undergo radiation therapy – even though she had undergone chemo. Katie was removed from the home.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/national/04katie.html

It is my opinion that none of these cases constitute “child endangerment”. The issue here is that the medical teams sees a different option than does the family (or the person, in the case of Dax). The other issue here is that our elected officials are busy rebranding the other guys rather than having some genuine discussion around the inconsistent way we treat families. In the United States, medical students are taught how to save lives but receive very little training on how to let a patient die (usually only one semester). This contributes to the god-complex of doctors but does it do anything for the patient?

I mentioned in my Facebook post that the above subject was my original choice for my thesis. Research to write that thesis landed me on a different subject, even more controversial, asking if every life is worth saving. In the case of Dax, even though he was old enough to make his own decisions, and even though we think he went on to do great things, Dax still thought he should have been allowed to die. Dax did not think his life was worth living; only his medical team and his mother – who had just lost her husband – felt that way. Who was being selfish? Dax, or the medical team (including mom)?

I have no wish to change anyone’s mind: I wish only to encourage deeper thinking and genuine discussion. It is for this reason that I write about Politics, the Media, and other Funny Things. Thanks for reading and I welcome your comments.

Vacation!

I'm heading to the beach for two weeks. The place I stay is a definite "dead zone" - no cell service, no wireless service ... Yikes! But ... perhaps when I return, everybody in Washington will be getting along nicely in the sandbox. Yep. That'll happen!

Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are having mega-batches of kittens today. (Senator Arlen Specter changed party affiliation.)  I think it's rather funny, actually.  One person actually commented that we'd end up with a one-party system.  First, I don't recall the right making those comments when they declared that they had a "permanent majority" in 2004.  Second, .... no freakin' way.  If magically everybody was a Democratic (or Republican, take your pick), how long do you think it would be before we split into two factions?  I'd give it 20 minutes, max.  The pendulum swings.  Right now the momentum is with the left but rest assured that some day it will swing back to the right.  Stop having kittens already!!!

The left has high hopes for President Obama; the extreme right wants to find everything wrong.  I think 100 days is nowhere near enough time to "pass judgement on a president.  I'm waiting to see but I DO have high hopes.

The torture thing is heating up.  Sure is a mess.

The photo op in New York with the low-flying plane was stupid stupid stupid.

The art of compromise

There is a very interesting maillist thread ongoing on one of my lists about bullets flying in the night.  The amusing thing is this .... the originator of the post commented about the green casings.  Another poster said that if they're green, they are the non-lead casings.  Is it me, or is there something very bizarre about "safer bullets"?

About gay marriage:  suppose we called everything outside of church ceremonies "civil unions".  Only churches would perform "marriages".  Would this solve the controversy?  (Full disclosure - the fact that same-sex marriages are not allowed is ridiculous!!!!!)

The pro-gun and pro-choice people make too much (invalid) use of the slippery-slope argument (if this, then that).  It's a bunch of BS.  Suppose the pro-choicers give up late-term abortions and the pro-gunners give up assault weapons.  Is that a compromise we can live with?

I spent 5 minutes of the ride home listening to Sean Hannity. (It's really all I can take of him anymore; he DID drink the Kool-Aid). Hannity thinks we should pull out of the U.N. and he thinks torture ("enhanced interrogation techniques") works.

RE: the United Nations: if we don't like something, should we take our ball & go home? I thought we were taught better as youngsters. We may not like it but my opinion is that we must remain as part of the world.

RE: torture: did we? should we have? I think there's an easy answer to the question of whether or not something is torture: would we accept it if done to our troops?

I've noticed that, the last two times Democrats occupied the White House, the political right acted as if the world was about to end and the country was about to succumb to ..... well, to what, I have no idea, but definitely to something. I worried more about the idea of freedom over the past 8 years - I was not sure we would still have Freedom in this country by the closing days of Bush 43.

I guess that's what makes people great! There are different ways of looking at the world. I personally prefer the liberal way of looking at the world but definitely "get" that the conservatives will have their time in the White House as well. We've made it this long - I wish folks wouldn't stress so much!!

(I love blogs - I can express my opinion all I want!!)

Dick Cheney is an ass.

Eugene Robinson: Mega-congrats on your Pulitzer Prize!!!!!!

Really Dumb Things

- The commercial for Astepro says that if you're allergic to Astepro you shouldn't take it.  Have we really become that stupid?

- Why do they put "Do not eat" on packets of silica beads?  Again, have we become that stupid?

- Charging teenagers for "sexting" then branding them "sexual offenders" for the rest of their lives is about the dumbest thing I've heard this year.  

- Speaking of teenagers, I think that if a prosecutor chooses to charge a teen as an adult, that prosecutor should also have to buy that teenager a case of beer.

- I still don't understand how 2 gay people being married is going to upset anyone else's marriage.  Isn't this similar to the argument that was used to prevent interracial marriage?   

- There's a stalker on Craiglist - why is it that someone has to come along and ruin something that works well for most of us.  Wouldn't it be fun if we could still have public stocks so we could all go shoot spitballs at these kinds of people?  (Before we lock them up for good, of course)