Cats and Dogs, and a Merry Christmas

In reply to Le�gal In�sur�rec�tion: Uh Oh, Cats and Dogs Getting Along
------------

In the spirit of cats and dogs, I want to wish everyone who reads this a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Whatever our political differences, that's something we ought to be able to agree on. I'm just sayin...
------

Submitted for approval December 24, 2009 8:57 AM, (Legal Insurrection blog time)

(Yeah, I kinda used ol' LI to say Merry Christmas to the readers here, while still maintaining the purposes of IM... ...though the sentiment I posted there was sincere.)

Donald Douglas, E.D. Kain, & Blogger Ethics

In reply to: Le�gal In�sur�rec�tion: Blogging While Employed
-----------

E.D. Kain acknowledges he made a mistake in reaching out to someone he thought might have some insight into (& perhaps influence over) Donald's strange behavior toward him. As our host quoted, Kain has already apologized for the mistake.

Unless one's blog content impacts how a writer does his/her job or affects the company or institution for which s/he works, it's bad form to involve one's boss in a blogesphere conflict.

If Donald were admitting to grading his liberal students lower because of their political views, or trashing his fellow professors or college, I might be inclined to suggest that his Department head read what he writes. Were I a prospective student (or at my age, the parent of one), I wouldn't have any issue telling the admissions office that based on the blog posts I read, I was far less inclined to have anything to do with Long Beach City College, or why.

But barring that kinda thing, Donald's blog is between he & those who choose to read his words. I believe that those on the faculty who have oversight over him or deal with him on a regular basis ought to read what he writes--and any prospective or current student of his who doesn't is a fool--but that's up to them.

But as Cynthia says, there's more to Donald than meets the eye at first glance, and our "victim" doesn't play by the same rules he demands that others follow, including as concerns some of the same blogger ethics raised in this conversation. I would urge those interested to read the attacks on E.D. Kain that led up to this incident (as well as the incident that Ms. Yockey references) before deciding that Donald Douglas is nothing more than a poor, innocent doe-eyed deer who's been done wrong here.
-------------

Submitted for approval 12-16-09, 2:18 AM (IM blog time)

Whose Death Panels are these, anyway?

In reply to: Legal Insurrection: An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel" (See links below)
---

@ William (August 10, 2009 10:15 PM):

I think the point of that "talking point" is, what Dr. Emanuel wrote in the embedded article isn't what's in the health care bill. What Rep. Isaakson wrote, is. What Sarah Palin said about "death panels," was in reference to Isaakson's addition to the bill. The whole question of Dr. Emanuel's article or judging anyone by their "level of productivity in society" is kinda moot--except as an intellectual exercise--because nothing in the embedded article is actually in the health care bills being proposed.

@ alwaysfiredup (August 10, 2009 11:56 AM):

As regards your definition of death panels - What you describe exists in every health insurance company and most hospitals already. It's not just a part of every single-payer system; it's a part of EVERY system. Decisions are made by the providers of the actual health care (doctors & administrators), and providers of the money to pay for it (insurance company bean-counters and bureaucrats). To whatever extent the government (us) is paying for the health care, we have a right to decide under what circumstances the money starts and stops. (Personally, I trust we, the people, more than folks who're beholden to profits and shareholders.)

And again, Dr Emanuel isn't talking about every aspirin and band-aid. His article is about acute, life or death situations where "who's paying for it?" isn't the issue. There's only one heart, and more than one person who will die in the next 24 hours without one. (Except black market, I guess), one can't just run down to "hearts-r-us" and pick one up, regardless of whether they can pay for it out of their own pocket, have private health insurance, or the government is picking up the whole tab.

The way I see it, this is about creating a floor, not a ceiling. Those who can pay for it can and will always be able to get the "best" health care. These reforms are about getting adequate care for everyone else. Yeah, I suppose there will be procedures and drugs that the government won't pay for, but as someone who's had insurance companies disallow drugs that my doctor prescribed, I don't see this as a big change. Some pencil-pusher is already getting between me & my doctor and determining my care.

As for suing your insurance company, the unfortunate fact is it'll likely be your next of kin brining the lawsuit, and unless s/he's well-heeled enough to afford a team of lawyers, probably losing the case, besides. I don't know the facts about not being able to sue the government (but your claim sounds "fishy" to me--I'll read up), but I'd imagine the public outcry over denials that cause folks to die would bring about changes in a government plan quicker than in a private plan. (No non-disclosure settlements.)

Now as far as those "end-of-life" chats, I'm against any language making the chats themselves or their content mandatory. I wouldn't (at this stage, anyway) be opposed to signage and a document stating the facts about living wills and whatnot, specifying that the patient can discuss this such things with their doctor, and that if cost is an issue, the government will pay for that discussion. A take home hand out for everyone over 18--because anyone can be hit by a bus & left in a coma--and a yearly signed receipt of having received it would be fine. I wouldn't be opposed to a doctor choosing to bring it up, either. But I don't believe the government needs to be in the room mandating the conversation. (Of course, I feel the same way about abortion providers and those mandatory "counseling sessions" some states propose or have written into law.)

"Here are the facts about your options, and we'll be glad to discuss them with you ("at gov't expense," in the case of living wills & end of life care), if you so desire. Please sign & return this page stating that you received this pamphlet."
---

Submitted for approval August 11, 2009, 11:22 AM

In a lot of places here in America, speaking in turn is patriotic, too.

In response to Legal Insurrection: Our Leaders Versus the Un-Americans:
---

@Thingumbobsquire: There's a pretty good discussion about Dr. Emanuel a few posts back, titled "An inconvenient truth about the Death Panels." (Short answer: I'm pretty sure the writing you're referring to is actually about the medical ethics involved when you have one donor heart or liver, two or more patients who might not last another 24 hours without receiving one, and a decision has to be made as to who gets the organ. Opinions differ, but from what I've read, Dr. Emanuel (& company; there were 2 other authors to the journal article) is offering a system of ethics that is more compassionate & fair than the one UNOS is using currently, in my opinion.) I'd read the whole threat... someone even mentioned the Nazi angle.

I'm pretty sure that the author and every other person whining about this understands the difference between protest and drowning out opposing voices, no matter the feigned outrage. Marching in the streets to express your point is one thing; smashing windows to get your point across is another. Even though both activities fall under the heading of "protest," those who speak out against window smashing--perhaps by calling it "Un-American," even--are not maligning all protest.

Same goes here. Speaking out is very American. Shouting down your fellow Americans --both those who're elected, and your neighbors--in public meetings designed to express various points of view, and thereby not allowing those who oppose your point of view to be heard... Yeah, that's kind of un-American.

I'm not saying there isn't a time and place for being rowdy in response to what you see going on around you... ...but that doesn't absolve you of being criticized for it, especially if others think you're jumping the gun and acting like hooligans for your beliefs, prematurely.

In a lot of places here in America, speaking in turn is patriotic, too.
---
Submitted for approval August 10, 2009 10:15 AM

He's like... ...like... A NAZI!!!

In reply to commenter Lew Waters, at the post Legal Insurrection: An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel", who said:

What should be scary to all about Dr. Emanuel's words is that they sound eerily familiar,

"The underlying motive was the desire to help individuals who could not help themselves and were thus prolonging their lives in torment. ... To quote Hippocrates today is to proclaim that invalids and persons in great pain should never be given poison. But any modern doctor who makes so rhetorical a declaration without qualification is either a liar or a hypocrite. ... I never intended anything more than or believed I was doing anything but abbreviating the tortured existence of such unhappy creatures…… I am convinced that today they have overcome their distress and personally believe that the dead members of their families were given a happy release from their sufferings."

Testimony of Dr. Karl Brandt, Nuremberg War Crimes Trials, Adolf Hitler’s personal physician. Sentenced to death and executed June 2, 1948 at Landsberg prison in Bavaria.

---

Really, Lew? A Nazi doctor?

Where does Dr. Emanuel suggest ending anyone's suffering by taking any active step to kill them? Please quote and cite it.

At best (or worst, depending) this is about the allocation of limited resources in the face of multiple patients who all need the same resource to improve their health or (most often) save their life.

It's not about deciding whether or not a patient will likely die; there's one heart, and two or more patients who need one to survive the next 24-48 hours. Somebody will live, and somebody will likely die. Dr. Emanuel's article discusses four different systems of medical ethics for fairly determining who gets the heart.

Perhaps it would be instructive if all the people upset about Dr. Emanuel's suggested method for making this decision were to choose which of the other three ethical systems (or one they create themselves) they support for doing so, and whether the rest of us wouldn't find elements of it (the parts about "...who should therefore not get the heart," especially) equally distasteful.
---
Submitted for approval 8/9/09, 3:35 PM

Death Panels? Withholding Treatment? Really?!?

In reply to: Legal Insurrection: An Inconvenient Truth About The "Death Panel"

@ William: But if Zeke's not writing the bill, the argument is a specious one. (Do we even know for certain that Dr. Emanuel is a Democrat? And would it say anything about Republicans and health care, if it were to turn out he's one of them? -- The answer you're looking for, is no.)

I disagree that Dr. Emanuel is talking about withholding treatment from anyone, but is instead talking about allocating treatment in acute situations where there's only so much of it to go around, such as transplants (1 liver, 10-15 patients in the area who need one) or overcrowded emergency rooms (How many patients can one ER treat at a time, and how does s/he decide who goes first (a decision that may also determine who "goes" first.)?) I'm not saying that Trig couldn't become enmeshed in a situation like that, but I'd think that his age would be a plus under Dr. Emanuel's guidelines, and I see nothing in his paper that suggests his Down's Syndrome would work against him. (Perhaps that's because I read "prognosis" as referring to the acute condition that brought Trig into the hospital--will the expensive treatment bring him back to where he was before he was shot/his liver failed, or will he still suffer & possibly die because of it, regardless of our efforts?), rather than as judging the worth of his whole life, mental acuity included.

Assuming you state his view accurately (I haven't the time to read the whole paper now, but I intend to), I agree with the Doc, by the way... When resources (doctors, equipment, organs for transplant) are scarce, choices are made. Happens in hospitals right now, and it will continue to no matter what happens with this health care reform. In a finite system, the patient you have a good shot of saving gets more of those scarce resources than the patient that just isn't going to make it, especially in acute, emergency care situations.

The less immediately dire the health threat, the more that can be offset by patient/family money--and I don't think that'll change under the proposed reforms, btw--but when you're freshly shot or suffering a heart attack, your recovery (or survival) has alot to do with which hospital is closest to you, and what other patients happen to be there at the time. On a good night, you'll get the head of the department; on a busy night, you may get the newest intern. It's all supply and demand, and the luck of the draw.

From what I did read of the paper though, it's apparent that it is
a mostly theoretical exercise that assumes scarcity of resources as a given. It's the equivalent of discussing who you would keep and who you would toss off the overcrowded, sinking lifeboat, or whether you would rescue the doctor on the verge of finding a cure for cancer or the toddler, assuming you could only rescue one of 'em, and knowing the other would surely die.

ALL of the systems discussed in the paper (the one used by UNOS, the one endorsed by the World Health Organization) evaluate patients to determine who should get the treatment and who shouldn't. All of 'em have "winners" -- those who will get the liver or heart and will live, and "losers"-- who will not get the transplant and will likely die, and all of 'em propose some method of judging who the "winners" and "losers" should be. (If need be, I can seek out & post the equally disturbing choices the other medical ethics systems--systems in place as we speak, I might add--suggest for judging who should live and who should die.)

You & Sarah are welcome to your opinions and your fears, of course, but I don't agree with your thoughts on this.
---

Submitted for approval August 9, 2009 11:56 AM

JokObama (ObamaJoka?): Not racist, not meaningful; Just mean.

In reply to: Legal Insurrection: Joker-ology
---

Here I thought the pic was kinda mean-spirited (yes, :::sigh::: just like the one of Bush), but otherwise pretty stupid and meaningless. (At least the author--&/or I--got that meaningless part right. (The Joker, a socialist? Anybody who read or watched ANY Batman--even the silly TV show--knows THAT's not right...)
---

Submitted for approval August 6, 2009 5:43 PM Legal Insurrection blog time

Yeah, Bush posters bad, too. But that hypocrisy thing goes both ways, y'know...

In reply to this: Le.gal In.sur.rec.tion: Because Only The Far Right Incites Violence (& indirectly, this: Le.gal In.sur.rec.tion: Obligatorily Snarky Obama Joker Poster Post):
---

What 2470144 said.

Demonization like this reduces us all. I disagreed with Bush. I didn't hate him. (But to be fair, I also didn't speak up often enough when people on the left did these kinda things, just like not enough people on the right speak up now.) It is a partisan world, at least here on the internet. (I'm of the opinion that most Americans believe partisan bloggers & protesters right and left are nutcases who ought to get a life, in the first place, and that things like this only further cement that nutcase part).

Like the rumors folks are spreading about the Palin & Obama families, (& others, of course) it's lowest common denominator stuff that is more about hurting people personally than it is about issue advocacy.

Anyone who supports these pix while disparaging those (or vise versa) is a hypocrite. Wrong is wrong, period.
---
Submitted for approval, 8/4/09, 1:38 PM (IM blog time)

Oh, btw... This is what 2470144 said:

Regardless of which side puts forth the propaganda that demonizes the opposing side, the profitable exercise succeeds because it relies upon the vast zombie-wing condition of the nation.

The typical member of the zombie-wing has no real 'news & information' cognizance and thus, like some barnacle, must firmly attach him or herself to whatever political and informational vehicle is at hand – including family, social peer group and cultural environment.

Most people do not invest any time or interest in discerning the nature of their moral or political belief system. If the Reformed Lutheran Church tells them that late-term abortion is okay, then it simply is. If the Church tells them that God hates homosexuality, then gays are bad. If a media outlet proclaims so-and-so a racist, then he is. If one political party declares the other ‘evil,’ then it’s so.

The zombie nation watches sports; it doesn’t comprehend political viewpoints unless there is a feel good angle. A moral zombie doesn’t know right from wrong or up from down.

Hate Bush. Dems are Socialist. Conservatives are racists. Liberals are weak. America is to blame.

June 3, 2009 1:33 PM

UPDATE: Same answer to this wingnut blog that, predictably, has no comment area of it's own:
Liberal Hypocrisy of the day | Political Byline
I wouldn't even bother responding to the following ass (assuming he had comments, of course), but he does provide a nice listing of those on the wingnut right typing away about this brilliant picture with just one hand, until the donkey can't cum anymore. (points): Jokebama � docweaselblog

Rumors, Hypocrisy, and Rightwing Fringe Gossip

Le.gal In.sur.rec.tion: Don't Link To Nude Photos of Obama's Mother, and in particular, a comment by Cynthia Yockey, justifying the posting of nude photos, rumored by a few on the right to be Obama's mother:

Prof. Jacobson,

With respect, pay attention to the fact that it is conservative women linking these photos. They are NOT being linked for the porn value. We are linking them because they say something voters need to know about the people who raised Obama to help them make sense of how a man with such a sweet smile can do terrible things he is doing and that he will do even more terrible things if people do not get a really good grip on who and what he is. These photos are for the Doubting Thomases who must touch the wounds, so to speak, before they can believe.

Really, professor. Please change your mind about this. It is conservative women who are leading this charge. It is not about porn. It is about showing people how and why Obama is the troubled and duplicitous man he is, raised to hate democracy and capitalism and now in command of the perfect circumstances to destroy them.

Cynthia

August 2, 2009 2:57 PM

---

Last time I backed Cynthia... This time you're correct, William. And of course, some got it wrong, both times... (Sometimes I wonder whether conservatives take turns with the few consistently moral brains in the room.)

It isn't just the "porn" angle, Cynthia... It's spreading what amounts to unsubstantiated gossip about people, for partisan gain. Sure it's titillating to imagine that Sarah and the Dude are splitting up, or to spread rumors about Obama's dead mother, but whether or not they are, and whether or not she did, it's hurtful to the people involved and to their families, and true or not, it didn't, doesn't, and likely never will have any impact on them politically, or on the American people in any way.

It's just netyard gossip, and it isn't even particularly good netyard gossip.

The way Ms Geller & Dr. Douglas went about this is particularly unpleasant, because they simultaneously decried the rumor mill on the left, and ginned up the rumor mill on the right, in the very same posts, obviously and admittedly for payback.

Either one believes that spreading unsubstantiated rumors and gossip for partisan purposes is wrong, or one does not. It's hard to take people seriously when they decry something done to them, and praise the same thing done by them. YMMV...
---
Submitted for approval 8/2/09, 5:54 PM (Immoderate Monk blog time, since I missed checking Legal Insurrection time before submitting)

Future Perfect

In reply to:Le.gal In.sur.rec.tion: Negotiations Preconditioned On Mullah Rule & in particular: "You obviously do not understand the the key point of the Grand Bargain approach is U.S. guarantees to the Iranian regime. There were no such guarantees as part of the Soviet-US arms negotiations. In fact, the Soviet-US model makes more sense. Negotiate, if there is no viable alternative, over weapons, but do not compromise over opposition to the regime."

I guess the problem is, you forgot to show any evidence of the US guarantees to the Iranian regime, then.

I'm sure you'll get right on that, though...

(Alternatively, you might consider explaining how President Obama was to go about sending any letter at all to the Iranian regime yet to come... ...or why it is that he--or the leader of any other rights-respecting nation--wouldn't prefer dealing with the more democratic Iran to come, if only they could get in touch with that future leadership.)

Why do you conservatives hate America?
---
Submitted for approval June 24, 2009 3:45 PM, (LI blog time)