By Edward
So I'm on the subway yesterday, heading uptown, and there's this advertisement for health care or something with a mother and two young girls whose front teeth were missing. They looked kind of like vampires, the smiling girls, but otherwise they were cute.
OK, who am I kidding? By all standards of aesthetics true to themselves, this made them look hideous. If they had been any age other than that at which humans lose their baby teeth, most folks would have recoiled upon seeing them. We make an exception in our judgment for that toothless grin because we understand what it represents, and what it represents (growth, childhood, health, etc.) warms our hearts...but let's face it, "cute" is a euphemism here (or at least in the eye of the beholder).
But that's not why I'm sharing. What had impressed me as I considered these daughters of Dracula, was that they had new teeth beneath their missing teeth that would eventually emerge to replace them. This is something I had honestly forgotten humans have: baby teeth. It's one of those odd little miracles that had totally left my consciousness until it was jolted back into it by that ad. How does that happen? How does something so natural, if odd, wander out of one's mental archive?
This kind of re-awakening had happened to me several years before as well. I had just moved to Washington DC after three years of living out of a suitcase while traveling across Europe, and while walking through some trees, I came across a caterpillar. I was literally in a stupor for days when I bluntly recalled from some cob-webbed corner of my brain that this creepy crawly thing would cocoon itself one day, and then re-emerge as a butterfly. How on earth had I forgotten something so incredible? I mean it's not like I had forgotten my junior high school locker combination...this was something miraculous and huge.
OK, who am I kidding? By all measures of space and time true to themselves, the metamorphosis of a two-inch bug is very, very ordinary. I mean it happens what(?) billions of times a year?
There are times, especially when reading the news or the blogs, that I find myself despairing for the future of the US. All this change, all this turmoil, all these creepy crawly things in DC who resemble nothing so much as they do insatiable vampires.
The thing I realize that I've forgotten when in such maudlin states, however, is that this too is very ordinary and the way it virtually always has been. From the polls suggesting Americans feel Congress overstepped in the Schiavo case (even among Evangelicals) to the outcry on both the right and left about the recently passed bankruptcy bill, it's clear that it's true: there's more that unites than divides us.
It's not always possible to keep that fact front and center in one's consciousness, I know. It tends to slip away into the dark recesses from time to time, but when it gets really dark, we sometimes need to make an exception in our rush to judgment because of what such change can represent, and what it can represent is honest-to-goodness progress: a hashing out of our differences so that more of us, across the board, will be happy with the results down the road. You can't make an omelet, and all that....
I'm feeling a bit optimistic today, if it's not obvious. It's mostly the way the revolution in Kyrgyzstan has unraveled. They're not out of the woods yet, but when I reported to my partner they had freed Kulov, he cheered, and that warms my heart. Fingers crossed, and all that....
Edward,
Maybe, you feel this way because of the information you chose to believe. These polls have already been shown to be so biased that they are irrelevant, but you fell for them. Just like so many fell for the fake NG memos and the recently suspect Republican talking points on Schiavo where they couldn't even spell her name correctly.
Just a thought...
Posted by: smlook | March 24, 2005 at 12:55 PM
You determined to make me more cynical, or what smlook?
Maybe, you feel this way because of the information you chose to believe. These polls have already been shown to be so biased that they are irrelevant, but you fell for them.
cite?
Posted by: Edward | March 24, 2005 at 01:03 PM
Smlook: These polls have already been shown to be so biased that they are irrelevant
Two polls by two separate news organizations, both of them so biased that they are irrelevant?
I wouldn't say it's not possible, Smlook, but I would ask you to link to the analysis that shows this.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | March 24, 2005 at 01:03 PM
Good luck & high hopes for the Kyrgyzstanis. I am not so generally optimistic.
But there is always good stuff in the immediate vicinity, toothless smiles and such. We in Dallas are currently enjoying our semi-annual month of bearable weather, 75 high, 55 low. Everything is coming up green. Everywhere.
This too will pass into scorching brown desert. :)
Posted by: bob mcmanus | March 24, 2005 at 01:07 PM
See here for discussion of possibly leading questions in the ABC poll.
Posted by: kenB | March 24, 2005 at 01:25 PM
Edward looks for ways to show how united we all still are as Americans, even in the most divisive of topics and times, and smlook tries to find a way to pull the rug out from under him. I think that tells you lots more about the latter person than the former.
Good post, Edward.
Posted by: Phil | March 24, 2005 at 01:33 PM
kenB: See here for discussion of possibly leading questions in the ABC poll.
Thanks for the link, Ken. I disagree with the first comment about leading questions - the fact is that there is no serious medical doubt that Terri Schiavo is in a permanent vegetative state. The dispute arises from her parents refusal to accept this. I am not qualified to assess the leading nature of the next few questions: he seems to make a case for it.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | March 24, 2005 at 01:34 PM
Jesurgislac,
Your always so entertaining...
I think the more relevant link is:
cite
Posted by: smlook | March 24, 2005 at 01:36 PM
Smlook: You're always so entertaining...
Why, thank you. I think that's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.
cite
? http://www.url/here ?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | March 24, 2005 at 01:41 PM
Since Orin Kerr, the author of the first post smlook links to, says right up front that he's "no expert in polling", why don't we take a look at the opinion of someone who is?
Posted by: JerryN | March 24, 2005 at 01:42 PM
Phil,
Yes, Edward the Uniter:
There are times, especially when reading the news or the blogs, that I find myself despairing for the future of the US. All this change, all this turmoil, all these creepy crawly things in DC who resemble nothing so much as they do insatiable vampires.
Hey Phil, Every think about the people who he might be referring to as insatiable vampires?
If that's the language of a uniter, please spare me more.
Posted by: smlook | March 24, 2005 at 01:43 PM
That's hardly the most convincing "debunking" I've read of a poll's objectivness KenB, sorry. It relies too much on negative readings of phrases like "this way" (which it's a stretch to call "dismissive" IMO). Further, Volokh qualifies his assessments to the point that he viritually invites you to ignore his critique.
And a subsequent poll (CNN) still indicated more Americans disapproved than approved.
Since Orin Kerr, the author of the first post smlook links to,
I'm so totally confused now...I don't see that link.
Posted by: Edward | March 24, 2005 at 01:44 PM
You new to this country, smlook? If we can't unite in picking on "the government," what can we unite in? That practice is as old as the Union itself.
Posted by: Edward | March 24, 2005 at 01:48 PM
Edward - sorry for the confusion, it was kenB's link over to Volokh (post authored by Kerr).
Posted by: JerryN | March 24, 2005 at 01:53 PM
OH...thanks for that clarification and for correcting my attribution of that post to Volokh.
Your link is infinitely better, by the way.
e
Posted by: Edward | March 24, 2005 at 01:55 PM
Leave it to you to obsess over one sentence and miss the bloody point, smlook. "Oh no, somebody said something mean about Republicans!!" And that's as far as you get.
Man, if I took my politics that personally, I'd be so angry I'd never get anything done.
Posted by: Phil | March 24, 2005 at 01:55 PM
Leave it to you to obsess over one sentence and miss the bloody point, smlook. "Oh no, somebody said something mean about Republicans!!" And that's as far as you get.
Man, if I took my politics that personally, I'd be so angry I'd never get anything done.
Posted by: Phil | March 24, 2005 at 01:56 PM
Donkey Rising has a summary of polls on this issue.
I think Edward is right in his basic thesis. I suspect that the Republicans in Congress have gone too far. It is time for the Democrats to start reaching out beyond our base, and to reach out by pointing out how much closer we are to manistream values than the current Republican leadership.
Posted by: lily | March 24, 2005 at 01:59 PM
Oh no, somebody said something mean about Republicans!!"
Thanks Phil.
I was hoping folks would assume I included Democrats in that description as well.
Posted by: Edward | March 24, 2005 at 02:13 PM
Edward, I've gotta agree with smlook. I am a vampire (ask me about the Crimean War sometime -- what fun that was), and I'm higly offended that you'd compare me to Tom Delay and his pals.
Posted by: carpeicthus | March 24, 2005 at 02:15 PM
Nice post, Edward.
Oh, and Phil, don't you get it yet? We are the enemy. We are apologists for murder. We must be fought on every front, at every opportunity. The rest of Edward's little lefty love-note is irrelevant. Keep banging the "conservatives are victims" drum, that's the goal. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Keep it up, boys, and we will be able to explain away any inconvenient or contradictory fact. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias. Bias.
Posted by: st | March 24, 2005 at 02:21 PM
I'm higly offended that you'd compare me to Tom Delay and his pals.
I didn't. I compared you to Joe Lieberman and his pals.
Posted by: Edward | March 24, 2005 at 02:41 PM
Funny, I am accused of being angry but look how quickly I get attacked. I'm pretty sure its not me who is angry.
I actually found Phil's 10:33 comment funny. Didn't make me angry.
Call me crazy, but where did I accuse Edward of calling Republicans vampires. He was very generic in his accusation. But, saying he is depressed about the countries future and calling those in D.C. vampires doesn't qualify for being dubbed "Edward the Uniter".
Posted by: smlook | March 24, 2005 at 02:46 PM
When I left the 1980's, it seems I left much of the Left. Issues that I had been dealing with; sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism, multiculturalism, exploitive labor practices, identity politics--they all became old fashioned and passe. I began to associate them with frumpy and plain teachers of the Los Angeles Unified School System and old crusty Zionist Labor activist. I had turned their moralizing into the Sunday school teachers and awkward pastors, of an earlier time, peddling an ancient mythology and old fashioned moralality.
Embracing a libertine nihilism during the 90s, rejecting any moral codes except the ones that brought immediate pleasure in the LA club scene. Power determined morality--thus the more money one had, the easier it was to create morality.
Burning out on that, as it is bound to do. I started getting involved with traditional Protestant groups, exploring Calvinism and Dominionism. Questioning all that I had learned, growing up working-class (political associations) and radicalized by feminists (issues like sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism, multiculturalism).
I almost flipped. I almost turned into one of those people that used to brag about being a radical in my youth and grew up to become a Conservative/Right-Winger. Ready to pass judjment on the God-less feminists that infected my mind.
Until the Iraq invasion. Watching some sincere wholsome Christians transform into warmongers. It was shocking. After all the discussions conserning Godless whoremongers and liberals, warmongering was embraced with total abandoned. Their critiques of leftist/pluralistic values began to fall apart. (I noticed that most right-wing Christians percieve Liberalism/Leftism/Pluralism/multicuturalism/feminism to be the same ball of wax)
All of a sudden my anti-imperial instincts kicked in, the lessons of power I had learned from radicals were awakened. The Feminazis' were right again, especially, conserning war and a man's threatened masculinity and greed.
I was ready to turn my back on pluralism and leftist ideals for the comfort of a "percieved" strong group with stern foundation on the Right. Warmongering really is immoral. And unbecoming of Christians.
I don't know why Edwards remarks conserning metamorphoses made me think of that.
Posted by: NeoDude | March 24, 2005 at 02:47 PM
Jes,
Oops.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/978a1Schiavo.pdf
darn my lazy html ways
Posted by: smlook | March 24, 2005 at 03:31 PM
Lily,
" It is time for the Democrats to start reaching out beyond our base,"
I'm going to assume you aren't including the half of the Dem's in the house who actually voted for the bill and I guess were trying to reach out to the base.
My actual thoughts on the subject of Schiavo...
If someone in her family did actually support her husband I could be okay with it. But, as I see it goes:
Husband Yes
Father NO
Mother NO
Brother NO
Sister NO
Which just looks funny to me.
Posted by: smlook | March 24, 2005 at 03:35 PM
Nice post Eddie.
Posted by: Macallan | March 24, 2005 at 03:47 PM
I seem to have misunderstood it entirely. Not like me to miss an opportunity for partisan bickering. Must be befuddled by spring.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | March 24, 2005 at 04:00 PM
I took Lily's comment to transcend just the Schiavo case, smlook.
I've stayed out of the emtional sides of this up 'til now, but think I'm ready to weigh in. At least I have a more carefully considered opinion at this point.
Your argument about the family support for removing the feeding tube is compelling, I'll agree. It would be easier if the husband and blood relatives were in agreement.
Given that they're not, though, the question is what does the law say?
I've read folks make comparisons between Michael's decision and someone who beats his wife, suggesting the state would be right to step in those cases, despite the husband's legal guardianship. That's where I begin to think those who want Terri to live, though, can't be thinking clearly. That argument (and others like it) seem so ludicrous they suggest a desperation beyond what should be considered.
In the end, only somewhat less upsetting than the idea that this poor woman would be so sorely missed by her family that they'd be willing to take such extraordinary lenghts to prolong her life is the idea that other people feel they have the right to suggest one way or the other what's right for her.
Legally, (if not rightly) that extends to her mother, father, brother, and sister in this case.
Personally, I don't think I could not pull the plug on someone I love unless they had left very clear instructions to do so (or at least that's how I feel, not having gone through it). I did watch an ex of mine go through the excruciating process of bone cancer treatments, including a bone marrow transplant, only to decide after years of agony that he wanted to stop taking the medicine keeping him alive. I still haven't totally forgiven him, but it wasn't my decision. Had the marriage laws here been different, it might have been my decision once he became unconscious whether to force medicate him.
I think about how pissed he would have been at me after he woke up, and I know what my decision would have been. He earned my respect in life and deserved it in death. That beats all else for me.
That's all I can think about when I consider Terri. Should she miraculously regain the ability to speak for a moment, would she be angry at her husband or her family? After 15 years, I'd say it's anybody's guess. Fortunately, we don't have to make that call. Legally, her husband does.
Posted by: Edward | March 24, 2005 at 04:11 PM
It's clear that English isn't your native language, smlook, so I'll just chalk it up to you clearly not understanding what Edward actually wrote. In the meantime, a couple of advanced ESL classes should help you with reading interpretation.
Posted by: Phil | March 24, 2005 at 04:18 PM
Lieberman? Well, that's just silly. Everyone knows Lieberman is a brain-eating zombie. We try not to associate.
Posted by: carpeicthus | March 24, 2005 at 04:23 PM
Everyone knows Lieberman is a brain-eating zombie.
No wonder he's so angry...severe food shortage for him on the Hill.
Posted by: Edward | March 24, 2005 at 04:27 PM
Ah, something Edward and I agree on: politicians isn't mostly rapscallions anymore; they're not smart enough.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | March 24, 2005 at 05:02 PM
Edward,
Lily, may have meant something more. I don't know. But, with this specific issue the Dem's spoke with two different voices.
"Given that they're not, though, the question is what does the law say?"
I've really got no opinion either way on Schiavo. I'm sure to some people the law says different things.
All I'm saying is that it looks a little odd to me that the husband is so isolated. I think in my own family my parents might feel one way, but my siblings most likely wouldn't. That would look normal to me. This just looks odd.
Phil,
Do you feel the need to be an ass all the time or just today?
But, keep it up. That kind of arrogance has cost the Dem's two elections. ;- p
Posted by: smlook | March 24, 2005 at 05:12 PM
... brain-eating zombie ...
That is a vile canard. Zombies don't eat brains. Now, Ano-Movic demons, on the other hand...
Posted by: ral | March 24, 2005 at 06:16 PM
Zombies don't eat brains.
They do if they can get the skull open.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | March 24, 2005 at 06:29 PM
But, keep it up. That kind of arrogance has cost the Dem's two elections. ;- p
Ask me if I care. I haven't voted for a Democrat since 1992.
Posted by: Phil | March 24, 2005 at 06:56 PM
Slartibartfast,
you got me,
(smart-ass).
Posted by: NeoDude | March 24, 2005 at 07:03 PM
I think that since it is now the glorious Spring, it is time that we set aside our political differences and agree on some universal truths:
A) The Cubs are Good and if there is any justice in the world, should catch some breaks this season.
B) The Yankees are the Atom/Heart/Mother of all that is Evil and, as such, should be hated by right-thinking people.
Posted by: DaveC | March 24, 2005 at 07:14 PM
DaveC
Has the steroid scandal taken the luster off? Though I was under no illusion that these guys were drug-free, watching McGwire duck and dodge, and then seeing Bonds do his 'you, you, you and you' routine, I'm having some serious problems getting geared up for the season.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | March 24, 2005 at 07:23 PM
then seeing Bonds do his 'you, you, you and you' routine,
liberal japonicus, here's my translation of that Bonds press exchange.
Posted by: Macallan | March 24, 2005 at 07:51 PM
lj
Thanks for throwing cold water on the baseball thing.
And I was going to say that we could all agree that Tax Time stinks, but then again, you'd probably pipe up "Not me!, Not me!"
What can we all agree to like? Hmmm...
BUNNIES!
They're delicious!
The chocolate ones, I mean.
Posted by: DaveC | March 24, 2005 at 08:15 PM
Slartibartfast,
HEY YOU COMPARED ME TO A CRIMINAL!!!
(you don't like testimonials?)
Posted by: NeoDude | March 24, 2005 at 08:51 PM
Sorry, DaveC, I didn't mean to be a stick in the mud. Though the translation by Mac was priceless.
As for Chocolate bunnies, how about this. I teach Japanese students and the freshman camp is themed around Easter (which happens a month before, but can't change spring vacation). How do you explain, in relatively simple terms, the notions of Easter that encompass both the religious and commercial manifestations of the holiday? I've tried for 4 years, and every year has been a failure. Any ideas?
(powers that be, an open thread would be appreciated)
Posted by: liberal japonicus | March 24, 2005 at 10:51 PM
Mac - priceless.
Posted by: JerryN | March 25, 2005 at 12:01 AM
"the notions of Easter that encompass both the religious and commercial manifestations of the holiday?"
Renewal,rebirth,resurrection. Bunnies, Persephone, Adonis, Easter eggs, Osiris, Jesus, Inanna/Enki, Tammuz/Ishtar.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | March 25, 2005 at 12:18 AM
I never liked Bonds, but I still feel bad for him. Life is suffering.
Posted by: rilkefan | March 25, 2005 at 12:25 AM
rilkefan,
I feel bad for Bonds too. Sometimes the toughest burdens are of our own making.
Posted by: Macallan | March 25, 2005 at 12:28 AM
That kind of arrogance has cost the Dem's two elections
Yeah, Phill, don't you know that snarky replies to semi-anonymous commenters on blogs are just the sort of thing that lost John Kerry the election? For the love of Pete, hold your tongue, man, or the Republicans WILL RULE THE WORLD.
Posted by: Paul | March 25, 2005 at 09:55 AM
I think Paul's one of my new favorites ;-)
Posted by: Edward | March 25, 2005 at 10:43 AM
lj
For the definitive story about Easter bunnies, you MUST check out David Sedaris's book "Me Talk Pretty Some Day".
Here he is explaining the subject in his French class:
"And who brings the chocolate?" the teacher asked.
"I kenw the word, so I raised my hand, saying, "The rabbit of Easter. He bring the chocolate."
"A rabbit?" The teacher, assuming I'd used the wrong word, positioned her index fingers on hop of her head, wriggling them as though they were ears. "You mean a rabbit rabbit?"
"Well, sure," I said. "He come in the night when one sleep on a bed. With a hand he have a basket and food."
The teacher sighed and shook her head... "Here in France the chocolate is brought by a big bell that flies in from Rome."
Posted by: DaveC | March 25, 2005 at 11:06 AM
DaveC, you beat me to it. hehe.
It is time for the Democrats to start reaching out beyond our base, and to reach out by pointing out how much closer we are to manistream values than the current Republican leadership.
I'd appreciate some candidates who would represent the 90% of us that think pretty similarly, rather than the 5% on either end that scream the loudest.
Posted by: crionna | March 25, 2005 at 01:13 PM
I guess what I wrote upthread was ambiguous. I meant that the behavior of the Republican leadership in the Terri Schiavo case is so far out of line with the mainstreanm that it gives the Democrats a chance to position themselves in the middle without compromising values. Our values are,in fact, the middle values. I am disappointed and angry with the Vichy Democrats who vote with the Republican on extremists positions like this one. It seems both cowardly and politically unwise. I don't see how collaborating with extremism mitigates the extremism enough to be worth the moral compromise.
Some examples of how the Democrats can reclaim the middle: the Governor of Montana got votes by going to gun clubs and sportsmen's groups with the message that their interests were better served by voting for enviromentalist Democrats than anti-environmentalist Republicans. The Democrats retook the
Colorado State Legislature by running as common sense problem solvers against religious extremist Republicans. On the Terri Schiavo issue Democrats should be saying that people who respect life will fund Medicaid and protect families from devasting medical costs.
Posted by: lily | March 25, 2005 at 01:42 PM