My Left Wing - Recent Comments

everything is up to date in Kansas City!

weeping for brunnhilde — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 07:33:04 GMT

Condescending?

Maybe, but I don't think I was speaking in a spirit of condescension. Just recognition of my experience; I spent nearly eight years of my life in Iowa, two stints, both by choice, so I'm just going by my experience.

There's something special about places like New York and Rome, is all I'm saying; they offer something that simply can't be experienced in non-cosmopolitan places. It just is what it is. Some prefer one, others the other, some (like myself) am drawn to both, as necessary complements.

And frankly, of course cultural artifacts, new ideas, etc. are more accessible due to technology, and that's great, but there's still nothing, nor will there ever be anything, comparable to the delirium offered by the crowd, and by experiencing culture in the crowd, when you have to work for it.

There's no comparison between watching a dvd on my computer and seeing the same film in a packed house filled with living, breathing neighbors.

Same with live music v. canned music, public art, etc.

For me, no comparison at all.

How silly of me

caliberal — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 07:32:10 GMT

I thought the Democratic Party was the party where dissent is allowed even encouraged. If we don't hold our leader's feet to the fire who will, if we see a presidential candidate reversing course on such an important issue don't we have a responsibility to say something or should we just follow along like lemmings?

I'm sorry to disappoint you durrati but I'm sorely disappointed in Obama but it's not just disappointment I feel, it's the same rage I feel when any politician puts their future above those who will suffer because of their words and actions.

This is what Obama said.

In an interview this week with "Relevant," a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain "a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother."
Obama then added: "Now, I don't think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term."

As a professor of constitutional law he must know about Doe v. Bolton which is just as much the law as Roe v. Wade, in Doe v. Bolton mental health concerns are addressed.

Under Roe v. Wade, women have a constitutional right to choose an abortion, but after the fetus reaches viability, states may restrict or even prohibit abortion except when necessary to protect a woman's life or health. Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton, clarified that "health" must be broadly defined to include both physical and mental health concerns: "Medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all the factors-physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age-relevant to the well-being of the patient. All these are factors in the health of the woman.

Obama had no reason to even make this comment and even less reason to use the words "mental distress", words that are disingenuous and demeaning to women.

It's a slippery slope he's traveling on and one that has disappointed many women. I had such hope but it's been dashed, now it's voting once again against the other candidate, instead of A Change You Can Believe In, it's the same old same old and women will pay the price.

AIPAC has spoken

Deward Hastings — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 07:20:13 GMT

They're going with their second choice.

And it ain't the schvartze . . .

Jake, what's the alternative?

Karmafish — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 06:46:42 GMT

Constant war?

btw, this is entirely wrong:

And if you weren't, I'd bet you'd be trying along with Diane to justify and dilute some admirable vision from the hatred that is the core of the "true left".

Horseshit.

I am not trying to dilute anything.

In fact, what I am doing is just the fucking opposite. I am hoping not trying to dilute anything, but expose something.

You don't like what I'm trying to do? You think that it's worthless?

You think that I am just trying to be liked by everyone?

Oh, yeah?

Well, fuck off, motherfucker, because I don't think you have the slightest clue what I am trying to do.

Christ you disappoint me, Cali

durrati — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 06:30:36 GMT

astala arividerchi, baby.

I guess I'm just more forgiving

Madscientist — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 06:27:55 GMT

I don't expect him to be up on everything, to have thought through everything, nor to have a finished understanding of everything. (Same with McCain.) Candidates are required to speak as best they can.

So, I'd rather someone put it to him directly.

Until then, I agree with what you say about his comment.

I think some here have alluded to the calculation on the restrictions. Those who want to ban all calculation based on mental distress argue that this "mental health" exception has become an out to bypass the intention of the law. those arguing in favor of it argue that while there may be the occasional misuse of the exception, it is needed for the cases where a competent doctor truly makes a dire assessment. Neither side has presented much in the way of evidence, from what i can see. And it is doubtful that any evidence would stem the disagreement.

I think we can state the ideal, and should have laws which are constitutional and strive for the ideal. But you hav to admit that laws never actually reach the ideal, and one of the first strategies for those who want to get rid of a law is to show where the law is being abused, and to argue that such abuse means the law should be overturned.

Within a couple of years of the passage of Medicare, it was found that there were doctors who had become "Medicare Millionaires" by8 abusing the system. And, sure enough, some argued that this abuse meant that we should scrap the system.

Imhotep,

Karmafish — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 06:21:13 GMT

Thanks for continuing this discussion. It's something that I would like to continue doing and I was concerned that maybe you had left MLW, entirely. The reason that I would like to continue this discussion is because I am a Zionist. I am someone who believes in the necessity of the Jewish state and I do so, however much you may find it difficult to believe, for existential reasons. And that's precisely why I want to talk with someone, such as yourself, who strongly opposes Israel.

I just hope that we can agree to disagree without things getting personal. And I think that we can.

Alright. Let me jump in and address your comment, above.

I do not understand why you would characterize Zok as a "militarist Zionist" any more than I do your characterization of him as a "militant" Zionist. Has he ever suggested that brute force is the necessary solution to I/P? I don't think so. Where has Zok ever suggested military solutions to diplomatic or political problems? Where has he ever suggested that Israel should overrun the Palestinian people? Where has he ever applauded Israeli militarism of any sort? I simply have not seen it.

Can you point to anything that he has said that would substantiate this claim?

Also, I do not believe that Zok "yelled 'fire' in a crowed place just to get a reaction..." I honestly believe this completely mischaracterizes this essay. In truth, he pointed out something that should have been pointed out. FOX stereotyped a Jew in a traditionally anti-Semitic way for industry-political reasons. Was it intentional? Got me.? But there it is.

As for the "Jew hater" remark, (a remark which I am surprised to find taking on a life of its own) it was strictly between me and gott and in now way referenced WWL. Anyway, yes, I did in fact apologize for it. Although I regret the remark because I consider it, in retrospect, unfair to gott and spoken in anger, I also believe that gott insisted upon an anti-Semitic theme.

What he said, and there is no context which justifies it, was that Jews control the US government.

That kinda shit is practically straight out of the Protocols.

I'll speak out against that one every single time.

Or, just to extend the thought

Madscientist — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 06:13:51 GMT

What if, in an age when our behaviour and thinking is ever more being traced to specific brain structures, what if that liberal couple were to find out that their fetus showed genes indicating a tendency to religious fundamentalism?

Actually, mirrim, on the theoretical side, I see general genetic screening available quite soon.. You are certainly right about cost, but I don't think that invasiveness will be a problem.

The real problem will be, as you hinted, in making interpretations of the severity or even presence of multi-gene conditions.

I would think that SNP determinations using DNA chips is available now, although at this stage, its usefulness might not be that great. And unfortunately, we have allowed companies and others to patent particular SNPs (continuing the abomination of allowing DNA to be patented), which may mean that one chip may be less than comprehensive.

This SNP approach may be rather rough and less than elegant, but so are many other diagnostic techniques.

Damn 51st Staters

Madscientist — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:56:26 GMT

Of course. I've just described middle America.
Two societies rooted in their families and hometowns without anything like what I would call compelling or imaginative ambitions and living in (what to my mind is) horrifying cultural homogeneity.

Thius is why those of us in middle America don't cotton to you city slickers. You're always so condescending.

A person from West Virginia (his genetics intact, I presume) I met on the net graduated from Harvard. He told us that those from the "cosmopolitan coastal cities" never ceased to look down on him, no matter what his accomplishments.

You know, I can relate. I had a similar journey, but without the direct comparison to more than Canada. But i did talk to many disillusioned people who had sought shelter in other countries, and who found out that America wasn't so bad.

Just a couple of comments:

1) I lived in New York and left. I must say that it was the most provincial place I ever lived. Neighborhoods were like little countries, and woe to those who ended up accidentally where they didn't belong at the wrong time.

2) With the advent of mass communication, from the telegraph to the internet, the advantages of the city become less. At one time, to experience the world's greatest pianists, say, Andre Watts (someone both you and your wife can relate to!), you had to love in one of the great cities, and hope he performed there, and that you could pony up the jack to score a ticket. It remains true to this day that the vast majority of New Yorkers would have trouble paying for a ticket to a lot of these events. But even out here in your dull middle America, we can hear this master on our radios (if we can get Uncle Jake to quit playin' Turkey in the Straw on his fiddle for a minute) or even listen to one of his recordings, if we have one of them new-fangled playin' machines you heerd of.

But, ya knows, I reckon that New York City is even better than Kansas City.....

Everything's up to date in Kansas City
They gone about as fer as they can go
They went an' built a skyscraper seven stories high
About as high as a buildin' orta grow.
Everything's like a dream in Kansas City
It's better than a magic lantern show.
You can turn the radiator on whenever you want some heat
With every kind of comfort every house is all complete.
You could walk the privees in the rain and never wet your feet!
They've gone about as fer as they can go.
They've gone about as fer as they can go!
Everything's up to date in Kansas City
They've gone about as fer as they can go
They got a big theatre they call a burleque
For fifty cents you could see a dandy show!
One of the gals is fat and pink and pretty
As round above as she was round below
I could swear that she was padded from her shoulder to her heel
But then she started dancin' and her dancin' made me feel
That every single thing she had was absolutely real!
She went about as fer as she could go
Yes, Sir! She went about as fer as she could go!

That is exactly my problem with his comment

Kane in CA — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:56:16 GMT

"Mental distress" is a blanket term, without distinction. It would certainly include all those conditions which very much require medical intervention, and some that may not. He shot them all down. It's not a minor issue. Obama used the word "inartful" to describe wes clark's comment about mccain earlier this week. I don't happen to think that that it was the least bit inartful, but that description doesn't fit this bad choice of words. It could be deadly. Laws that ban late term procedures, except in the case of the health of the mother, and exclude serious mental conditions from those exceptions would be tragic.

youse fuckin' people are nuts

durrati — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:54:07 GMT

I gotta an election to win.

Hillary is dead.

Comprende?

No, I'm not, MadSci

mirrim — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:45:58 GMT

Overturning Roe is unacceptable. I'm not old enough to remember medically what it was like before, but I was taught by people who were. And yes, I walk the walk on this one (more clearly than that I will not comment).

My point was that ending a pregnancy at the point referred to by the anti-choice forces as a "late-term abortion", past the point of viability, is usually referred to by the MDs doing it as a delivery, not an "abortion", and results in a live-born infant. We do deliver babies before full term for maternal indications, not all the time, but occasionally, and then will as I said take our chances with the fetus. And of course, the occasional fetus dies in utero, but that's not under discussion here.

Roe and right to choose are off the table past 24/26 weeks, as you (and I) noted, because of the trimester structure, which despite the rhetoric we hear, is still quite useful clinically. Third trimester is viability.

"Normal" is trickier, I will grant you. I was thinking specifically of anatomically normal, i.e. no classic "birth defects" detectable by ultrasound. I doubt very much that your scenario of detection of genetic defects will become generally available, unless and until there is a relatively inexpensive blood test that can be done on the mother for screening. Since the fetus's genetics are half the mother's, that could get tricky. We can screen for Down syndrome because the levels of certain substances the placenta produces are usually different. Prenatal diagnosis, even of serious genetic defects such as cystic fibrosis or hemophilia, require not only amniocentesis, but often analysis of the parents' specific form of the defect for comparison. Amniocentesis is an invasive test which requires ultrasound guidance and cannot get large amounts of fluid for multiple tests or a large "panel". Absent a huge breakthrough, I don't see your scenario happening, just on the basis of expense.

The dilemmas, though, get more interesting: the classic of an anti-abortion evangelical fundamentalist family, and the fetus tests positive for homosexuality...

Weeping's tip jar

Madscientist — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:36:15 GMT

Slice him some tongue or slather him some schmaltz.

c'mon cali,

durrati — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:31:12 GMT

1.21 millon abortions were performed in 2005...how rare is that?

Didn't notice

Madscientist — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:31:06 GMT

in my typing. but in this kind of non-technical setting, Obama as a politician responding, and here on a blog, I wouldn't be meaning a difference.

But "mental distress" actually makes my point better.

And this:

I know you've spent much of your life working with many that have suffered from "mental distress". Was it less worthy of medical consideration than physical distress?

Unfortunately, the answer seems to be "yes." Check your policy. Part of the reason is, as one psychiatrist used to stress when he gave talks, "we are all psychiatricly indigent." (In other words, the costs are astronomical.)

And that spills over into this discussion, where "mental distress" is used as a blanket term without distinctions, rather than a cover term for conditions that very much require medical intervention (taken widely) in some cases. I remind you that one dear to many on this blog was in the throes of depression, even on this enlightened blog, there were a couple who angrily told him that psychiatry is bunk, th3e medicines are a scam, and that all he had to do was "snap out of it." He didn't.

While we are good at distinguishing the extremes of polarities, we are not good at the fine work of drawing the distinctions in the middle. The more contentious an issue, the more likely that we will see it in the black and white of strict opposition.

A kazillion 11s for you here :) n/t

caliberal — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:24:54 GMT

gotta google

durrati — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 05:17:14 GMT

that one mir...tomarrow...