Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Fresh off the heels of their last successful piece of demagoguery -- death panels in the healthcare reform bill -- the right wing brings you their latest and greatest lie: The Death Book. Not only does the Obama administration want to kill grandma and Sarah Palin's baby, they also want to convince veterans to kill themselves. That was the meme being pushed by Fox News last weekend.
The demagogue in chief on this one was Jim Towey, who started all of this last week with a highly dishonest op-ed in the Wall Street Journal where he claimed that the VA has a book called Your Life, Your Choices (full text here) that tells veterans that they've become a burden on society and should kill themselves. The lies came fast and furious:
Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."
But as David Weigel notes at the Washington Independent, the VA did not suspend the book under Bush. A single local VA hospital removed the book from its website, that was all. The book was in full use throughout the Bush administration, which makes all of this new feigned outrage all the more idiotic.
Towey claims that the book was written to convince veterans that they're a burden on society and should kill themselves rather than fight to stay alive:
"Your Life, Your Choices" presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to "shake the blues." There is a section which provocatively asks, "Have you ever heard anyone say, 'If I'm a vegetable, pull the plug'?" There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as "I can no longer contribute to my family's well being," "I am a severe financial burden on my family" and that the vet's situation "causes severe emotional burden for my family."
When the government can steer vulnerable individuals to conclude for themselves that life is not worth living, who needs a death panel?
This is nonsense. Yes, the book lists all of these possible situations and more. Why? Because the whole point of the book, which is subtitled "How to prepare a living will," is to get people to think about such situations in advance, before they actually happen, so that they can talk about it with their families and decide what they want done before they become incapacitated and can't make their own decisions.
The notion that the book pushes people to kill themselves is absolutely ridiculous if you've actually read it. In fact, the book goes to considerable effort to caution people against believing themselves to be a burden casually:
It's normal for people with new limitations to feel like they are a burden because they need more help from others. But be sure to ask your family members what it means to them to be a burden before you "spare" them. You may be taking away their chance to return the gift of the love and care that you've given them.
It also warns patients against making a hasty decision, noting that sometimes the immediate negative reaction may give rise to depressed feelings that will pass over time:
People often think that if they had physical or mental limitations their life would be terrible. But some people adjust to limitations and disability and find that life still has a lot to offer them. After you've given yourself some time to get used to your new situation, take another look at the exercise on page 21 to see if your thoughts have changed about what makes life worth living.
This book is extremely valuable. Far from encouraging suicide, it encourages people to think deeply about end-of-life considerations while they're still able to think about them clearly, discuss them with their loved ones and make sure everyone understands their wishes.
This is a personal issue for me. I've been in this situation three times with loved ones, having to help make decisions on what to do at the end of someone's life that I loved deeply. In all three situations, the decision was made to withdraw the last vestiges of medical care that was keeping their body barely alive and let them die. In all three cases, there is no doubt in my mind that this is what they would have wanted. In two of three cases, they had made that wish very clear themselves while they were still able to do so.
I am appalled and offended by people using such painful and difficult situations for political gain. Even worse that they do so with lies and by attacking resources like this book and the consultation provision in the health care reform bill that would help people express their own wishes in advance and encourage them to think about them before they happen so they can make living wills and ensure that their own wishes are followed.
Politics
Comments
Ed, Ed, Ed....let's not let little things like facts get in the way of a good spittle-flecked rightwing diatribe. It's so much more fun to watch.
Ok, I lied...keep the facts coming.
Posted by: FastLane | August 26, 2009 9:27 AM
Doesn't Towey also sell a book that competes with Your Life, Your Choices, and that the VA decided not to spend the $5.00 each Towey was(is?) charging?
Posted by: trog69 | August 26, 2009 9:27 AM
Awwww, it isn't anywhere as interesting as the manga of a very similar name, then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Note
Posted by: Umlud | August 26, 2009 9:41 AM
My mother died in 1994 from pneumonia in California. She was an enthusiastic supporter of California's Patient Rights bill, which allowed her to deny invasive treatment. After she died, her minister told us (pretty callous) that he thought she had committed suicide because she didn't do everything possible to stay alive. So I think that maybe there are those on the Christian right who DO think that living wills or "do not resuscitate" orders are either euthanasia or assisted suicide. (That minister busted my irony meter right then and there, because my mother had told him she just wanted "to go home to Jesus" - and he couldn't handle that)
Posted by: BC | August 26, 2009 10:09 AM
I fail to see why this book is necessary. Can't the Death Panels take care of this stuff?
Posted by: kehrsam | August 26, 2009 10:10 AM
... maybe Bush was in support of letting veterans die. Oh, wait, he was insofar as he didn't really seem inclined to increase support for veteran health care (let alone support for veterans' education), nor inclined to initially provide equipment support for troops going into Baghdad (which could have possibly limited extent of the future need for heath care), nor inclined to conduct a decisive campaign in Afghanistan (which could have meant that we wouldn't be in Afghanistan 8 years after we went in, nor possibly have so many casualties in Iraq), etc.
The Bush admin's (tacit) support of the continued use of this book (I say tacit because I doubt they issued a statement saying that it was to be continued to be used after he took office in 2000, three years after it was put into use under the Clinton admin) is probably one of the better things he did for vets.
Posted by: mercurianferret | August 26, 2009 10:22 AM
I know the conservatives have a legit agrument against the health-care reform still being created. But they should lose by default for using these tactics. If they spread their logical opposition to the bills, I would have more empathy (although I'd probably still be in favor of reform). But for their vocal majority to take this approach, they deserve to have their worst nightmares come true.
Posted by: Jordan G | August 26, 2009 10:27 AM
You know what's really, really sad? Half the Republican mongoloids are going to pick up on this. And now they have another thing to scream about at town halls. And Obama is going to have to waste another five minutes at the beginning of each of his speeches with, "No, we're not going to kill Granny or the veterans. You can take off the tin-foil hats." And eventually Obama will remove the book from the shelves, and the veterans will be without a valuable resource.
Posted by: Brandon | August 26, 2009 10:32 AM
kersham asks:
> I fail to see why this book is necessary. Can't the Death Panels
> take care of this stuff?
Little do you understand bureaucracy. There would be at least a dozen different agencies with Death Panels, all with a different name.
VA: Office for Offing Veterans
Post Office: Panel to Tell Post office workers to Piss Off
DEA: Office of Overdosing Oversight
NIH: Plain Old Death Panel, You Betcha!
Posted by: t_p_hamilton | August 26, 2009 10:38 AM
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 26, 2009 10:43 AM
OMG! IT'S A COOKBOOK!!!
[Dingo goes to run off in panic, instead shrugs shoulders in a kinda 'Meh' way, and saunters off unafraid of the elderly gag] - DJ
____________
Well SOMEONE was gonna get around to it, eventually.
Posted by: DingoJack | August 26, 2009 10:58 AM
DJ, didn't we get enough soylent green last week?
Posted by: MikeMa | August 26, 2009 11:04 AM
Let no one forget that James Towey is a full-fledged Bushevik, having been appointed the second (the first was neither rabid nor partisan enough) director of the White Palace "Faith-Based Initiative" in February of 2002.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | August 26, 2009 11:08 AM
It's almost as if the conservatives don't want to admit that death happens at all.
Also, I'm surprised that Sarah Palin hasn't invoked the "Death Book"-- it would give her an opportunity to add her running mate John McCain to her list of people the Obamacare death machine wants to murder.
Posted by: Emily | August 26, 2009 11:09 AM
I gotta say, all this talk of death panels and stuff has me thinking of a new t-shirt idea.
A nice, pea greeen shirt. On the front: "Soylent Green is..."
On the back: "...tasty!!!"
=) Whadya think? Should I start a Cafepress shop goin?
Posted by: FastLane | August 26, 2009 11:19 AM
@ Emily,
I think you hit on something here. It's like conservatives are afraid of death and afraid of sex (and sexuality). For some reason, many aren't as afraid of violence (or the threats of violence or violent - and quick - death). They just are very disturbed when death comes slowly.
It's almost like they are some sort of Valhalla-seeking group of people in which a glorious death is something to be worshiped, while a cancerous death (or a death due to some terminal disease) is something they just can't stomach. (Also, a glorious death usually creates a martyr -- always a good thing to a zealot -- and has almost no associated medical costs.)
As to the being terrified about sex[uality] thing? I don't know, but I suppose it's some sort of hang-up surrounding "Original Sin" or some hokey like that.
Posted by: Umlud | August 26, 2009 11:23 AM
'The Death Book'? I thought it was pronounced 'bible'?
MikeMA - Never can get enough of that yummy Soylent Green! I make SG angel-cakes that are just to die for! [drum-fill]
Seriously now, my response to this whole ridiculous 'moral panic' thing that the Republicans are desperately trying to 'sell', would be to simply remind them that their official mascot is an elephant NOT Chicken Little. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 26, 2009 11:26 AM
@ FastLane: Depending on the stylings of said t-shirt, I might buy one (or more). And if you do it, please include an option for long-sleeve t-shirts; they are really good for fieldwork, and I think it would be funny to be wearing one when going out into rural parts of Michigan.
Posted by: Umlud | August 26, 2009 11:29 AM
Sigh, children these days. DJ was alluding to the incredibly famous last line of the incredibly famous science fiction short story "To Serve Man" by Damon Knight. It was made into a Twilight Zone episode.
Since everybody who has read this far already knows the ending, I'll give a brief recap: the space aliens do millions of favors for humankind, and regularly a few lucky humans are taken for a visit out there, to be taken to an unspecified higher level. Their guidebook is "To Serve Man", as they like to translate the title, clearly all about their noble intentions. Well, at the end, the main character translates the rest of the book, and reveals the actual meaning.
Posted by: william e emba | August 26, 2009 11:33 AM
I have to disagree with this part of Umlud's post. I see a lot more people who view violence like a bully, not a warrior: they should get to use it against helpless victims, but shouldn't have to experience it on anything like equal terms. So you see folks who become very comfortable with torture or police brutality, hoping it will somehow make their own lives safer, hoping it will save them from becoming victims of violence themselves.
I think many are afraid of death in any form, which makes them quite uncomfortable with even planning for it. If you leave every last detail to God or Nature, then you don't have to be giving death any thought.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | August 26, 2009 11:55 AM
william e emba - relax "It's a Good Life" ;) - DJ
Scott Hanley - "...land of free and home of the brave." [/sarcasm] - DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | August 26, 2009 12:00 PM
@ Scott: fair dues re: perception of death and violence perpetrated by others against some sort of "them".
However, I've always been surprised at how loath many Americans are about discussing death. I have a somewhat morbid sense of humor, but I'm always surprised at how shocked people are when I casually bring up death or dying. It's a natural part of life and it should be recognized as such.
I wonder what average Americans think about the Mexican "Day of the Dead" or the Japanese "Obon" festival. (Admittedly, the latter uses fewer images of skeletons than the former, but both celebrate aspects of the dead and of death and remembrance.)
I personally think that if Americans were forced to think about death at least once per year (even if it is ritualized and cloaked in some religion), then it might help them overcome their fear of talking about it (or topics related to it) openly. If that were the case, then people wouldn't get so freaked out about "death taxes" (remember that one?), "death panels", and "death books".
Posted by: Umlud | August 26, 2009 12:04 PM
Don't forget the ever-brilliant (snort) RNC Chairman Steele's take on all of this, which is that we are actively pushing vets toward suicide.
Should I bother asking if he has no shame?
Posted by: MomTFH | August 26, 2009 12:24 PM
Umlud,
I guess Halloween doesn't quite count, does it? It seems to be more about fantasy role playing than about death and mortality.
"Death taxes" was one of my favorites. Funny how the people most opposed to inheritance taxes are the same ones who claim you shouldn't get anything you didn't personally earn.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | August 26, 2009 12:26 PM
Nah - no weekly contemplation of death is the US:
He just crawled on up there for a little nap after a long parable. :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 26, 2009 12:40 PM
DingoJack [17], now THAT's a great idea for a design: the new Republican symbol: Chicken Little.
Haven't the Grand Obsolete Partiers realized yet that fewer people = fewer taxpayers?
Posted by: Monado, FCD | August 26, 2009 1:09 PM
Thanks--I should send the link to someone I know, where they have the choice of living immobilized and forgetful and--not taking a cup of surcease, but dying slowly and painfully by stopping other medical care. I do wonder why Catlicks don't construe that as suicide?
Posted by: Monado, FCD | August 26, 2009 1:11 PM
Always include a couple of V-necks in your T-shirt options. Not everyone looks good with a tiny little circle collar and a vast expanse of bosom.
Posted by: Monado, FCD | August 26, 2009 1:17 PM
I have a distinct memory of sitting at the kitchen table while he filled out something very similar to this, several years before he died. At the time, he seemed quite relieved. I think in many ways veterans especially dislike the idea of some doctor making such decisions, or forcing their kids to do it for them. The VA would certainly never produce something that encouraged Veterans to harm themselves, and I am starting to become appalled at the right wing, who usually triumph Veterans' Rights, for using the VA as their whipping boy.
Posted by: valor | August 26, 2009 1:23 PM
Posted by: william e emba | August 26, 2009 1:41 PM
Sigh, children these days. DJ was alluding to the incredibly famous last line of the incredibly famous science fiction short story "To Serve Man" by Damon Knight. It was made into a Twilight Zone episode.
Oh, is that where it came from first? I only knew about the Simpsons reference.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 26, 2009 1:58 PM
Eamon - One evening my nephew, and his friend, came to my house to play their near mint copy of Micheal Jackson's Album "Thriller" on my turntable.
As my Nephew's friend was placing the record on the turntable, he said:
"Hey, the groove spirals around and around into the middle!"
I was sorely tempted, at that moment, to say "That's how a record works' and launch into a eye-glazing explanation. That's the moment when I realised I was OLD.
That's for a second reminder. :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 26, 2009 2:23 PM
Don't feel too bad DJ. I saw that episode of Twilight Zone, To Serve Man, and had forgotten it completely until now. I may even have read the short story 1000 years ago when I read every sci-fi short story collection the book store got in.
Good that you let the young'uns enjoy the ancient magic...
Posted by: MikeMa | August 26, 2009 3:32 PM
Regarding the apparent sex-phobia of the social conservative, I've given that subject a lot of thought myself. I still don't get it.
I looked at their common religious views first, and it gives part of the explanation. In their particular version of Christian theology, sex itsself isn't inherently evil (As was the case with many earlier branches of the religion), but it has a proper place. That place is between a husband and his wife within the confines of a church marriage, as God ordained it. Any sex outside of this, however, *is* evil and must be prevented.
I think what we observe from the outside is that this view, in effect, means that all sex is evil with a very narrow exception - and because it's so narrow, shades of shame leech to cover even that.
Another vital consideration is that, typicially, the social conservative view of sin doesn't admit any concept of personal privacy. Sin is not just a subject for individuals - it is a matter for entire communities to police. God judges collectively, bestowing his grace upon the rightous and his wrath upon not just the sinners, but those who tolerate sinners. Thus those who subscribe to this religious view feel it is not only their right (And the right of the state) to poke their noses into everyone else's sex lives, but their duty. Fornicaters, adulterers, homosexuals and viewers of pornography pollute everything they touch, and must be stopped from their sinful ways lest they drag the entire community down with their unholy polluted actions and even thoughts.
They aren't afraid of sexuality though. It's much more complicated. It's more a sort of loathing, or disgust. Sex doesn't frighten them - it sickens them. The only fear they have of sex is fear that other people may have sex outside of the one-man-one-woman-one-marriage limits they believe God specified.
Oh, one exception to that though: They are afraid of pornography. But that's just because they have been reading their own propaganda on the subject - I've read it, and scarcely a page can be found on which the word 'addiction' doesn't appear several times, usually together with fear-inducing testimony by someone talking about how looking at porn destroyed their life until faith in God put it right again.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | August 26, 2009 4:06 PM
Very enlightening, and well thought out post Suricou Raven.
Posted by: Jordan G | August 26, 2009 4:12 PM
Suricou,
You have some good points, but I think the biggest factor is the issue of paternity. Women always know that the child that comes out of them is theirs (except in freak fertility mix-ups). This makes conservative men jealous. Conservative men don't trust women, so they have to control them enough so that they don't have sex with other men. The Bible really doesn't encourage on-man-one-woman marriages. It condones one-man-and-any-number-of-women marriages. There are plenty of double standards about sexuality among conservatives.
Posted by: catgirl | August 26, 2009 4:55 PM
They aren't afraid of sexuality though. It's much more complicated. It's more a sort of loathing, or disgust. Sex doesn't frighten them - it sickens them. The only fear they have of sex is fear that other people may have sex outside of the one-man-one-woman-one-marriage limits they believe God specified.
I think that the line between fear and disgust is less clear than you are suggesting. Fear and disgust are two distinct emotions, but they are also closely related. Social conservatives strike me as both afraid and disgusted by sex (and sensual pleasures generally). The fear and loathing of sexuality stems both from a sense of shame regarding the human body and a general unease about physical pleasure.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 26, 2009 7:39 PM
Regarding the apparent sex-phobia of the social conservative...
Oy. Physicians, heal thyselves.
As for the "Death Book" [read it for yourself]
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:NwWZ3TYn_LEJ:www.rihlp.org/pubs/Your_life_your_choices.pdf+your+choices+your+life&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
"Your Life, Your Choices" is plainly about choices, namely life or death.
Consider the cases of Mrs. Santini
and Mrs. Johnson, both deeply religious women.
"I want to be kept alive as long as possible,"
Maria Santini has said on many occasions. "Life is
sacred and has meaning, no matter what its quality."
"When my time comes, keep me comfortable."
Irene Johnson also believes life is sacred. However,
she has often said, "I’ve lived a long and full life. I
don’t want anything done just to keep me alive."
Because Mrs. Santini and Mrs. Johnson both
believe that life is sacred, many people would
assume that their views on being kept alive would
been the same. But, as you’ve seen, it’s not that
simple.
Here's another example...
OK.
On the whole, the pamphlet is balanced [we'll consider what that might mean later], however, its "workbook" [p. 21] lists 20 or so scenarios under which one's answer might be "life is not worth living," including the rather nonlethal
b. I can no longer get outside—I spend all day at home
In the summary,
If you checked "not worth living," does this mean that you would rather die than be kept alive?
As for balance, what we have here is the government presenting as a viable option [well, "viable" is certainly the wrong word], that some medical conditions make life "not worth living."
Now, this is probably an acceptable notion to many denizens of this blog---and philosophically, I won't call it invalid---however, such "neutrality" is already the seal of government approval of the validity of this point of view.
Now, if we as a society should empower our government to present this point of view as valid, I don't want it done by unelected executive branch functionaries like the doctors who wrote this pamphlet. This is Leviathan, the faceless, unaccountable bureaucracy that already runs much of our lives. I do not want to extend its power to life and death.
I don't want these unelected health professionals anywhere near our moral decisions as a society, at least no closer than any mook off the street be it Peter Singer or Pat Robertson. Our scientists and medical professionals are no more "stakeholders" or carry any more moral authority or wisdom than any of the rest of us.
[I'll also add here that the "Resources" in the appendix include only stuff like The American Cancer Society and just one advocacy group, called "Choice in Dying." It's not completely balanced.]
Now to me, per my worldview, this is indeed a Death Book, and persons of good conscience and differing worldviews may not see it that way, which is fine. But for me to call it that is neither a lie nor a misrepresentation. "Choice," in my view, is often a euphemism for death.
If stuff like "Your Life, Your Choices" is to become part of the government canon---and if this shit passes, it will---I want its inclusion or rejection accountable to public debate, every damn word of it. It'll be no less important to our lives and deaths than the Constitution, and I'll be damned if I'm surrendering morality to Leviathan.
If it's to become the official position of the US Government that "sometimes life is not worth living" is a valid and unobjectionable "choice," I want us to talk about it first. A lot.
That is all.
Posted by: tom van dyke | August 26, 2009 9:00 PM
tom van dyke, #38: As for balance, what we have here is the government presenting as a viable option [well, "viable" is certainly the wrong word], that some medical conditions make life "not worth living."
That's because it really is a viable option to consider life not worth living under some medical conditions. There is nothing wrong with a government (or non-government) health service getting people to think about this and to let their relatives, friends, and health providers exactly how they feel about the matter so that there is no doubt about their intentions one way or the other if (the relevant deity forbid) the worst should happen.
It's not as if the government is pressuring people to opt for suicide. It is giving people the opportunity to explore their feelings and make them known to the relevant people around them. That's a good thing.
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 26, 2009 9:19 PM
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | August 26, 2009 9:46 PM
Tommy, Tommy, Tommy:
Did I not read your distinct pledge to go away the other day, because people were insulting you, you fucking puke.
Now, on top of everything else it appears that you're a goddmaned liar.
Posted by: democommie | August 26, 2009 9:54 PM
@Suricou Raven: Your description of the "social conservative view of sin" is quite similar to the Puritan worldview-- but that's to be expected, I think, from the Christian Right.
Posted by: Emily | August 26, 2009 10:06 PM
Speaking of the VA--- they apparently sent out about 2,000 letters to vets telling them they have ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) when, in fact, many of them don't: "Vets Wrongly Told They Have Fatal Disease".
It seems to me that either the VA hospitals are underfunded or the funds aren't evenly distributed. Thoughts?
Posted by: Monado, FCD | August 26, 2009 11:15 PM
How does Mr Van Dick see somebody making their choices clear when they have the ability to as a bad thing?
In that case, you should be all for giving people information on how to make their wishes known while they are able to so that others don't have to decide for them when they're unable to do so for themselves.
Then your worldview is retarded. I agree w/ democommie, you're a liar. Why should anybody believe you when you say you honestly think the way you claim to instead of the much more believable alternative, that you're purposefully misunderstanding things to try and make political opponents look bad?
Posted by: tincture | August 27, 2009 12:08 AM
Mr./Ms. Tincture---I respect my political opponents, as well as my philosophical ones, even as I oppose them. The intelligent and careful readers of this blog, and of my remarks, appreciate that fact.
I don't have to delegitimize them to disagree with them. Persons of good conscience can disagree, and at heart that's what I'm saying and explained why. But thank you for your opinion of my worldview. An interesting choice of words. Perhaps Mr. Brayton will feature it in a future post.
Posted by: tom van dyke | August 27, 2009 2:59 AM
Mr. Totally Venal Dick:
Per your worldview? It is so fucking myopic that any travelling you did was surely a waste.
Posted by: democommie | August 27, 2009 4:02 AM
The thing is, I don't think it's possible that anybody could honestly look at a pamphlet advising people on the options about living wills, etc, and come away thinking of it as some sort of "death book," some sort of necronomicon. Unless that person is so simple as to think, for example, of biology text books as "sex books" or, American history books as "slave books."
I understand that intelligent people can honestly see things in different ways but this is beyond the pale.
In other words, I think you're either a liar or an idiot for thinking about this the way you claim to.
Posted by: tincture | August 27, 2009 5:00 AM
Posted by: Mike | August 27, 2009 6:52 AM
The notion that the book pushes people to kill themselves is absolutely ridiculous if you've actually read it. (emphasis mine)
Ah hah! I knew there was something amiss with you.
Since you "read" things before making conclusions with your "brain" on their content, you're clearly one of them arugula eatin', bath takin' Ivory Tower elitists!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 27, 2009 8:24 AM
Since mr van dyke didn't let facts sway his predetermined notions the last time he slithered by, nobody should expect his behavior to be different now. don't encourage his dishonest trolling.
Posted by: dean | August 27, 2009 8:31 AM
tincture, #47: The thing is, I don't think it's possible that anybody could honestly look at a pamphlet advising people on the options about living wills, etc, and come away thinking of it as some sort of "death book," some sort of necronomicon.
Well, remember that this is largely the same crowd that thinks that explaining all the options of preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease is "promoting teen sex."
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 27, 2009 8:33 AM
Umlud@ #16: I suspect that a lot of the hysteria we're seeing from the far right is not just fear of death and sex; it's fear of just about every aspect of growing up and losing the carefree innocence and safety of childhood. I see it in their hatred of women (especially women who threaten The Family by questioning Daddy's authority), their hatred of divorce (which they often seem to blame for EVERY PAINFUL EVENT that happens to kids as they grow up), their refusal to even think about non-conventional family arrangements (thus their complete freakout over Obama's rather complex family life), their opposition to any decent form of sex-ed, and their insistent infantilization of every discourse on every issue. Their Utopia is the world of childhood, and they're bitter at the world, and most adults, for not letting them stay in their safe cocoons.
As for death, like children they're perfectly happy to see "the other" get killed by "our brave boys" (cops and soldiers), but the mere thought of their own loved ones dying is something they never really learned to handle, and thus they react by hiding behind a wall of pure mindless emotion, and desperately shout down any attempt to even talk sensibly about the subject.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 27, 2009 9:41 AM
Raging Bee: I agree with you that social conservatives/RWAs' beliefs and actions stem from an essentially childish conception of the world, but I disagree that they operate from a sense of nostalgia or even admiration for childhood. For all their "think of the children" claptrap, they demonstrate very little actual regard for children. Think of their refusal to see children properly educated, the pro-corporal punishment stance of many of them, and their willingness to emotionally traumatize children with dire warnings of hell and god's wrath.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 27, 2009 5:36 PM
It seems to me that either the VA hospitals are underfunded or the funds aren't evenly distributed. Thoughts?
Monado, I'm always in favor of more funding for the VA, but it seems a bit of a stretch to use a coding error as justification. If the VA had paid more money to the clerk who mis-coded the disease, he/she wouldn't have made the mistake?
Posted by: Shay | August 27, 2009 7:42 PM