The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.
-George Washington-
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
I feel SO much safer now.
You have to see this to believe it. Yes, it is real.
Remember Porter Wagoner, the old-time country star who recently made a comeback? It was just a couple months ago that we were talking about his comeback and the show he did with the White Stripes.
Well, he's in the news again, and it's not good. He's in the hospital. His ailment is unspecified, but it seems he's in bad shape. He's asking for your hopes and prayers. If you're a hoper or a prayer, spare the old sod a little of your time, eh? He seemed pretty popular in my previous post - in fact, he set a Trolling the Underground comment record that will be difficult to beat!
Best wishes, PW, for a speedy and complete recovery. Let's make this historic comeback last!
If you've been looking at this thread and that thread, you know that Jews is News. Well, this started as a response to a question there, posed by Daniel. It was:
One of the problems is with the meaning of the word 'assimilation'. Just because a group of people live in a community in some country doesn't mean they are necessarily assimilated.
As with the Bretheren, they live and work in places all over the world but they do not believe they are part of their society. They believe that God will appear and lift them and them alone to heaven without dying (The Rapture). They marry each other and are very secretive.
People of most religious persuasions (including Jews who call themselves the Children of God) have similar fantasies about their special place in the world even if they don't often spell them out.
If people believe such discriminatory, superior things how can you then call them 'assimilated'?
Well, here's how I see it.
They shop at the same malls we do, and buy the same clothes. They eat the same way-too-salty pretzels. They go to the same post office, and we see them at the same Chinese restaurants. They sit next to us at blues concerts. They see the same movies in the same theaters and laugh at the same jokes.
They pay taxes with us, and walk their Jewish dogs in the same parks our Episcopal pooches soil. We flip each other the bird on the freeway, but it's nothing personal. They're our bosses, our employees, the guy in the next cubicle, the guy next door. Our kids go to the same school. They have the same teacher. My kid's going to be a carrot in the school play, the Shapiro kid's a kishke. Maybe he'll be the one who takes her to the prom.
They're our doctors, our lawyers, our cops, our judges. They're our business contacts, our suppliers, our customers. They're the faces on our TVs, and the faces behind the faces behind the faces. They make movies just like that Catholic guy does. They look at us from CD labels and magazine covers. They're next to us in line while we look at those magazine covers.
They're our in-laws and our friends. They get their TV shows pre-empted for a 7-hour screening of It's a Wonderful Life once a year just like the rest of us. They're the people we hang out with. They're the people we fight with. Our pals. Our enemies. They teach in our schools and clean our carpets and fix our cars and stock our shelves and do everything that we do in the same places at the same times for the same reasons in the same ways.
And for some reason, they're still the only ones that can make a really good ham sandwich. Why is that?
Is there bigotry? Of course. But while some people may be quite vocal about it, most folks aren't that militant about religion. That's what pisses off the loud folks so much. Despite haughty claims to the contrary, and despite what people mark in the "religion" box of the census, we have pretty secular attitudes for all practical purposes. More so in urban areas, but we just don't go around worrying if the people we meet in our daily lives have the same religion as us. Those people exist, but are an ever increasing minority.
That is how we can consider them assimilated. I stand by that word. They're in our everyday lives, and we're in theirs. We're all Americans.
Well, it looks like the poll on the hysterectomy issue has petered out. It was a very good turnout - the best ever, in fact. At this rate I could be out of small sample statistics by 2009. Here's the scoop:
I'm on the "slippery slope" side but I think "atrocity" is a bit harsh so I voted "other." I don't like the precedent and removing a uterus so a woman doesn't have to "suffer" menstruation? I could see if there were cancer or something else but I think the excuse is weak. Part of me thinks this is more about forced sterilization than about not having a period.
Well, this is a toughie. The girl is probably going to be unable to take care of herself during that time. That means mom or nurse has to. Look, I don't even like taking care of my self during my time, let alone someone else. On the surface this sounds like a horrible idea... but I think in the long run, it helps everyone.
Once again, I am "other." Okay, let's see. I don't on principle necessarily disagree with the idea of non-lifesaving surgery upon a severly disabled person to make it easier to care for him/her, if the disabled person will benefit directly from that (e.g., a reduction in pain, etc.). But this seems extreme. Why not give her an ablation if she suffers from heavy and/or very crampy periods? That's what I had, and everything's great now. Even if RaeJane had to take care of me, she'd agree. :)
I don't think future possible potential babies should be AT ALL the issue in this case, but what will cause the least suffering with the most gain right now. A hysterectomy is a serious operation and can have complications, plus weeks of painful recovery time. I don't understand why that's the only option on the table here.
Like Eden, i think there is more than a whiff of sterilising the girl about this story than improving her quality of her life. I voted for the slippery slope because i feel very uncomfortable about operating on people just because they are disabled and that smacks of eugenics.
Just for clarification purposes, cerebral palsy is not genetic, so sterilizing children with it would do nothing to prevent future occurances. It is caused by damage to a developing brain either in the womb, during birth, or soon after and can be caused by infection, malnutrition, or physical trauma. At least, that's what the highly trained team of medical experts at Wikipedia say.
Therefore, if a person with cerebral palsy gives birth the baby does not have a higher chance of having it, provided that she is getting proper care. Of course, it's pretty obvious that if a woman so disabled gets pregnant, someone is taking advantage of her, and she isn't getting that kind of care.
Then again, if she CAN'T get pregnant, there's one less way of knowing if she's being abused.
I, too, must go with "other." I do believe the mom is looking out for the best interest of her daughter, but why not allow the girl to experience the periods first and all the associated pains and then allow HER to decide whether or not she wants to endure that for another 30 - 40 years.
I don't particularly like the word "atrocity," since it seems quite harsh. If you've not walked in the shoes of someone who's had to care for a disabled person, it's really hard to label this as atrocity. If Hitler proposed it, it would be atrocity, but since it's the girl's mom, I'd take that into consideration.
When you have a child that fits outside the "norm" for childhood experiences (and I have one), you can't simply make rash judgements on the parents. Parents are working with legal, educational, health, and social systems, and it's bloody frustration all around.
Posted by N1Tootsie @ 10/09/2007 09:21 AM PDT
I am not the parent of a special needs child. I am a co-director of a group of volunteers that have taken over the challanger division of some soap box derby racing. We build dual control cars and run races for special needs children. I have had intimitate conversations with some of the parents and try to understand some of the day-to-day challenges they hurdle. We have had racers that are very limited in their ability to communicate their needs. If a child is in pain, it shows in VERY individual ways. Also many of the children are not capable of understanding normal body functions. The sight of blood and the pain of menstration can be a very anxiety filled trauma. (And yes trauma is the right word here) If this child is not capable of communication, she will not understand why she is in pain, she will not be able to express the amount of pain and she will begin to build huge amounts of anxiety anticipating the pain which she does not know how to stop or why it starts. I think this child's parent is the best person to make this decision. If the parents have the support of the childs doctors, let them keep their child free from pain and anxiety.
Posted by N1Tootsie @ 10/09/2007 09:23 AM PDT
Some times we are more humane to our animals than we are to our loved ones.
"Some times we are more humane to our animals than we are to our loved ones. "
How very, very true.
I think everyone knows what I mean in the second choice. Is the word that I used really the main issue here, folks?
Posted by N1Tootsie @ 10/09/2007 11:34 AM PDT
No Joe, Atrocity is the right word. There are some who feel sterilization of any kind is an atrocity which leads to a slippery slope that devalues all life.
No, the word is not the main issue, but it's tough for me to call what this mom proposes to do an atrocity. I'm not sure it's a kindness, per se, either, unless she is being totally selfless in the decision.
I voted other because I'm on the fence. I didn't see anything in the article I read about the daughter having dysmenorrhea or anything of that nature. It seems to me like a convenience thing. And while I don't disagree that it would be nice to be able to do something for the girl to make a bodily function she may not completely understand less of a burden, I think there are a couple of alternatives that could be attempted first before the option of major invasive surgery, with all its risks and recovery time, is performed.
I've read elsewhere that the child is *severely* disabled, unable to understand bodily functions, walk, or even communicate at all. Exactly how, then, will she be able to express the fact that she's in pain or frightened? And since there's no chance of the girl ever reproducing or even having sex, it seems to me any argument about her reproductive freedom is moot. Since the mother is responsible for her care, and has indeed devoted her own life to it, she should be allowed to make this decision in conjunction with her daughter's doctors. I highly doubt it's one she's making for her own convenience. In fact, I'd venture to say someone should ask her when the last time she made a decision for her own convenience even was...she probably can't remember.
Overall, it seems that this move was considered a kindness by ten respondents, with the other ten opinions being a split. Some of the "Others" kind of made allowances, however, so it seems to be considered an okay thing overall. I think we can all agree that it's a shame people are faced with such choices in the first place.
The new poll is a bit more personal, as it involves something that happened to me the other day. It's over in the sidebar!!
It was the summer of '85. I was just freshly dropped out of college without a frigging clue as to what I was going to do next. I was nineteen and spending the summer the way I would have anyway - hanging out with my friends.
I remember getting a call from Hillbilly Tim (this was, of course, in his pre-hillbilly days). This was July 5th, and we were planning on seeing Eric Clapton the next night. At the time, Poplar Creek Music Theater was still active, and we lived quite close, which was the best of both worlds. We were out in the country, but this venue was big enough, close enough to Chicago, and on a major tollway, so it attracted major acts.
Hillbilly Tim said "Hey, are you sure that the Clapton show is tomorrow?" I told him I was. He said "He must be doing two shows, then, because I just heard them say on the radio that it's tonight." Well, as sure as I was about the night, I was even more sure that there was just one show, so our plans changed. Instead of a day, we had about three hours to showtime.
Here's where memory fails. I know that with our original plans, transportation was not an issue. With this new schedule, it was definitely a problem. We ended up offering my brother a ticket if he drove, which was fine except he needed a babysitter. Overhearing that, Tim's sister - the lifesaver - volunteered. She didn't even ask to be paid. Some kids just love kids, I guess.
That established, my brother had to drive from Woodstock to Huntley, about 20 minutes, pick me up, proceed to Hampshire to swap my nephew for Tim, then get to the show. Not difficult normally, except for the fact that the only time my brother ever moved fast was when the cops were chasing him, and he was extra laid back due to an accident a few years prior involving both kneecaps and an extremely blunt trauma.
We stopped in Dundee at Wendy's because he hadn't eaten and he wanted one of their potatos (which were a new thing at the time). They didn't give him a fork to eat it with, although I didn't know how he was going to eat it while driving, anyway. He did, though. I'll never forget him trying to stuff that potato in his face, cheeze oozing everywhere, while shifting and steering. Ol' Wobbly did it, though. We stopped at TicketTron and proceeded on.
We got there just in time to grab a patch of grass on the lawn that butted up to the wall that lined the back of the theatre. In fact, we got there in time to see the entire opening act, which wasn't really necessary as it was Graham Parker and the Shot and they sucked. There I leaned for the duration of the show. That was probably the furthest back I have ever been and still considered myself to be in the audience.
It wasn't bad, though. Poplar Creek never really was. While I wasn't exactly seeing Clapton in detail, I could hear just fine, and that was the important thing. A pox upon Sears for buying and closing it.
Well, naturally, I found a recording of it eventually - a sweet soundboard recording that compensates my prior distance with an onstage ear. A very nice thing not only because it's a memento, but also because it was a good show that was fading fast from memory. I remembered him doing Motherless Children, Tangled in Love, and the "obvious" tunes, but didn't remember the specifics of the show. I didn't remember that the bass was played by the talented Donald "Duck" Dunn, whom I've also seen live playing for Neil Young and in the movies supporting the Blues Brothers. I didn't remember the song sung by one of the background singers, Shawn Murphy, nor did I know that ten years later she'd be taking over as lead vocalist for one of my favorite bands, Little Feat.
It will probably surprise you not a bit that upon careful review, it's the blues tunes that are I find most worthy of sharing. There are times when Clapton can really rock out (in fact, The Core is my favorite by far) but on this night, these were the best tunes, The first comes fourth in the show - almost a quarter into it - when Eric seems to be getting good and warmed up. It's called Same Old Blues.
The next comes at the three quarter mark. He's let each of the background singers do a tune, and everyone in the band has shown off a little. He's played a few crowd-pleasers. Now we can just kick back against our walls and listen to Clapton cut loose a little. This one is called Double Trouble.
When I found this, I immediately made copies for Tim and my brother. Tim's I just sent along in the mail. To my brother I mailed a postcard that said "Do you remember what you were doing on July 5, 1985? I do." Then I strung him along for a couple weeks until it arrived in his mailbox. It drove him nuts. Payback for a few "Hertz Donuts."
O.J. Simpson: I know you know how to hire a lawyer. (1)
Sgt. James Kuehnlein: I have to wonder if there really is as much crime in America as we think. (watch the video to see what I mean) (2) Gen. David Petraeus: Gosh, Wally, you wouldn't give me the business, would you?
Sgt. Tom Lovejoy: Why is it so easy to find cops for this thing each month?
Scott D. Clark: I don't even know what to say about this asshole. (1)
As always, one vote per in the comments. Anonymous votes are NOT counted!
Winner goes on to the American Asshole Yearly Pageant.
If you see someone in the news you think is just a plain, simple asshole, feel free to send me a link! I'll entertain all nominations, but retain the right of final say.
You get a hysterectomy and I'll get a poll, honey.
Well, the last poll has died off, most definitively. All respondents were underwhelmed with sympathy for people who jumped right on the iPhone bandwagon so that they could have the bragging rights, only to be dismayed when the price was drastically cut a few months later, making them appear to be the schlubs that they are.
Now, normally the comments go bye-bye when I change polls, but starting this time around I will post them in a follow-up post so that they are preserved for posterity. Why wasn't I doing this before, you ask? Because I didn't think of it and you didn't suggest it, that's why. Here they are.
I tend to agree. Why did people jump on it right away? Because they couldn't live without it's functions? Doubtful. People jump on these things to be the first on their block to have it, and part of being first is saying to the world "I can afford to ge this right away and not wait for the discounted price."
I don't think they should get a refund because they're idiots, but I think it's a good PR idea to give them one in order to keep them as future (idiot) customers. And I shouldn't call them idiots -- if they have the money to throw away, good for them!
It is a good business move to cave a little, so I don't blame them. But if they have the money to throw away as you say, they shouldn't be whining now, and if they DON'T have the money to throw away, shame on them for having to be the first on the block to have the damn thing.
Anyway, it's time to reset the poll. This week's is a little more serious. The news item it refers to is here, and the poll is in the sidebar.
See how efficient it still is, how it keeps itself in shape— our century's hatred. How easily it vaults the tallest obstacles. How rapidly it pounces, tracks us down.
It's not like other feelings. At once both older and younger. It gives birth itself to the reasons that give it life. When it sleeps, it's never eternal rest. And sleeplessness won't sap its strength; it feeds it.
One religion or another - whatever gets it ready, in position. One fatherland or another - whatever helps it get a running start. Justice also works well at the outset until hate gets its own momentum going. Hatred. Hatred. Its face twisted in a grimace of erotic ecstasy.
Oh these other feelings, listless weaklings. Since when does brotherhood draw crowds? Has compassion ever finished first? Does doubt ever really rouse the rabble? Only hatred has just what it takes.
Gifted, diligent, hard-working. Need we mention all the songs it has composed? All the pages it has added to our history books? All the human carpets it has spread over countless city squares and football fields?
Let's face it: it knows how to make beauty. The splendid fire-glow in midnight skies. Magnificent bursting bombs in rosy dawns. You can't deny the inspiring pathos of ruins and a certain bawdy humor to be found in the sturdy column jutting from their midst.
Hatred is a master of contrast- between explosions and dead quiet, red blood and white snow. Above all, it never tires of its leitmotif - the impeccable executioner towering over its soiled victim.
It's always ready for new challenges. If it has to wait awhile, it will. They say it's blind. Blind? It has a sniper's keen sight and gazes unflinchingly at the future as only it can.
Artists have discussed the relative power of all mankind’s emotions for centuries. In poetry and song love is usually ascribed the most power, the ability to conquer all. Those emotions we consider negative always lose to hope, compassion, and faith. In her poem “Hatred” (1993), however, Wislawa Szymborska claims that the title emotion is ultimately strongest, and she makes her point with a series of metaphors.
Szymborska’s first characterization of hatred comes in the form of a hunter chasing its prey. Hatred easily “vaults the tallest obstacles” (4) and rapidly “pounces, tracks us down” (5). This comparison, like all that follow, is incomplete, however. Does a wolf hate the rabbit it hunts? Not at all; it merely pursues the rabbit for its own survival. Hatred, likewise, needs us to survive. It cannot exist without people to feel it, and thus feed it.
The next aspect is subtly different. Hatred is still running, but is now racing against the other emotions, as if at a track meet. Szymborska sees hatred as the favorite that fills the stands and always wins. This is easy to see – many people have never felt love, compassion, or pity. How many people on Earth, aside from very young children, have never hated?
The succeeding metaphors stack up like a staircase, all bound by a common idea and leading to another. Hatred is now seen as various types of artists. As a composer, hatred writes songs, most likely stirring national anthems and battle hymns. History books are filled with hateful, patriotic prose. Hatred paints, sculpts, and even tells the occasional dark, twisted joke. Szymborska doesn’t see randomness, however, but repeatedly points up hatred’s motif. Besides “fire-glow” (36) in dark skies and “bursting bombs in rosy dawns," Szymborska paints this picture of hatred’s style:
Hatred is a master of contrast- between explosions and dead quiet, red blood and white snow. (41)
As most artists develop a signature style, so hatred works in contrasts. Brightness against darkness, blasts breaking silence, the violence of spilled blood framed by the white purity of clean, fresh snow are all examples of hatred’s creation. With this illustration, Szymborska leads us to see how hatred prefers to use its canvas – to set opposites against each other.
True hatred, that is, hatred not rooted in greed, lust, revenge, or ambition, always involves opposites. People of different races will hate each other for no other reason than white skin against black. Having a different religion than someone else is a tried and true way to inspire hatred. A different culture is often enough to inspire hatred, or the difference between rich verses poor. This is the simplest, purest, most terrifying type of hatred, as it is immune to both opposing emotions and any form of logic. It simply exists for its own sake, and as Szymborska points out, “gives birth itself to the reasons that give it life.” (8) After all, does a racist admit that it is the skin color he hates, or are there a litany of things wrong with “those people” that he’ll claim is the real issue?
Taking all of these symbols together – hunter, racer, composer, writer, painter – Szymborska creates an image of hatred as the greatest overachiever in the emotional realm. Hatred is the fastest, the most effective, the most motivated, and, ironically, the most destructively creative of all the emotions. While it may, on occasion, take a back seat to gentler emotions temporarily, Szymborska sees it looking to the future sharply, assured of ultimate victory.
