Fifteen Minutes For Carol and Nick
Our very own Nick Bravo scores a double today with his letter to the editor getting published in both the Times- Standard and the Eureka Reporter. Now there's a hard- hitting commentary! Love the quote he attributes to Chomsky.
Carol Conners also gets another fifteen minutes of fame for her piece in the Eureka Reporter. Notice it's a Guest Opinion, not just a letter to the editor. Oooh...aren't we special? :-) Maybe we should give her thirty minutes of fame for that one?
I especially appreciate her including a quote from Thomas Jefferson. Don't know that I'll be trying to read much else Jefferson might have written if all his writing is that drawn out.
I never finished the Federalist Papers for the same reason. The writers: Jay, Madison and Hamilton write much the same as Jefferson- writing ten paragraphs when they might have been able to make the same point in two or three.
I can't be too critical as that seems to be the way many folks wrote back then. Some still do.
Anyway, a round of applause for Carol and Nick for their hard- hitting commentaries.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:55 AM
53 comments
53 Comments:
while many Democrats and Greens clamor to censor me and my video camera, they themselves feel they have every right to stalk and videotape police, business people and others whom they disagree with politically.
Greens and Dems believe in stalking??
If people come to Has Beans, will Nick put them on YouTube? Sounds inviting.
Yea. But what a difference. The piece from Carol was thoughtful and intelligently written. The other .... well, you decide.
One question for Carol though. As I read through it, I couldnt help but wonder if she felt the same way about her Quaker friends who protest the war and then have neat little articles about them, as well as their buddhist brethren. I suppose the same standard should apply to them as well, by her column.
The problem I wrestle with, is that where is the line crossed where it actually becomes a matter of separation of church and state. What I mean is that if one protests the war, or assisted suicide, for that matter, one could rationally assume that it is a matter of conscience/ethics for each protester. Certainly one's religious beliefs help to shape each person's conscience/ethics/moral value. Thats where I have a problem with what Carol is saying. It seems like she is saying that if one has religious beliefs, then they should have no say, because thats infringes upon separation of church and state, and I truly dont think thats what our founding fathers had in mind.
Moreover, what, truly is a religion these days? One could argue that agnostism, athiesm, or nature worship are all religions unto themselves.
Anyway, Carol, I enjoyed the article. I just dont agree with all of it, but hopefully it will stir up some interesting and respectful debate here on the old blogosphere.
Paul
Well if you read the article that was written in the Eureka Reporter that I referenced, it was reported that opponents cited religious and ethical reasons for opposing AB 374.
If you think Jefferson is long-winded, try reading Clinton's autobiography. I couldn't get through it. As I see Carol's point, it's about who gets call the shots. Should organized religion have more say over a person's right to go out peacefully rather than die some long, drug-induced death, or should the individual have the right to make that decision?
Carol Ann has an excellent opinion on a very tough subject that is kind of creepy. The right to put someone to death at their request. It is so hard to see a loved one suffer in a state that their quality of life makes it unbearable.
I am not passionate about this AB 374 bill, and I really think it will have trouble passing. But when push comes to shove, I am sure my family will be support Berg's agenda.
I am still mad at Patty for the $177 million dollars lost on the Willits bypass fiasco though.
Carol wrote a great opinion piece whether or not you agree with everything or not. It is indeed a tough subject but along with the right to live, we should have the right to die.
On another note, I don't think you can blame Patty for the loss of the Willits Bypass money. This was regional politics at its worst, and it did not make any difference who was in the Assembly seat, we were going to get screwed.
I'm with Hayduke on both issues.
If AB 374 passes, someone might mistake Fred for a person in severe pain with a limited time left on this Earth. They might put Fred to sleep people!!!
"...Jefferson’s letter of January 1802, also known as Jefferson’s Wall of Separation Letter, which led to the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution".
Carol seems to be confused. Jefferson's letter was signed Jan 1,1802. The first 10 Amendments had been in effect for over 10 years. Few question the right to suicide. The state intervenes when assistance is solicited for obvious reasons involving one's competence to make the solicitation. This has little to do with religion.
"Well if you read the article that was written in the Eureka Reporter that I referenced, it was reported that opponents cited religious and ethical reasons for opposing AB 374."
And Carol, that is my exact point. When the Quakers protest the war as a matter of conscience, how is that any different from the folks who are protesting assisted suicide as a matter of conscience. ARe you trying to say that a matter of conscience somehow has more weight if it somehow isnt shaped or formed by religeous values?
With respect, you didnt answer any of the questions I raised.
Paul
"Few question the right to suicide..."
Another dispatch from Sparta? He obviously doesn't spend any time in the United States.
ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ, I had a retired college history prof. proof read my opinion piece prior to it being printed in the ER. Please refer to this website,too:
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
I'd still love to hear your answer Carol. Could it be that you have a different set of standards when it comes to causes you do support? Your silence on the points I raised speaks volumes.
Paul
He's from Georgia y'all, we shouldn't expect him to understand The United States Constitution; Those folks had to be forced at gunpoint to partake, lest we forget.
Not a single comment from Nick? In a thread that is partly about him?
That seems a bit strange. Fred, have you been zapping Nick's comments in this thread?
To hell with "Nick (Ryan Fenster) Bravo"! Let the subhuman filth twist in the wind!
His Constitution Day event was, like himself, a dismal failure!
HAHA!
"Paul", you are full of shit. Leave my wife alone.
Happy Birthday Constitution. Americans are still divided into factions that singlemindedly pursue their agendas. Somehow, (since 1865) we've avoided having violent civil war. I'm very thankful.
Why dont you try answering the question? Why are you attacking? The questions are valid. Again, using Carol's logic, her Buddhist and Quaker friends are violating separation of church of state while they are out protesting the war. Why dont you explain that? How exactly am I full of Shit? Have I attacked your wife in any way? Nope, I've asked questions in a reasonable manner, questions that she wont answer. Could it be that once again you display your inconsistency in these things where its "ok" if its something you believe but not so, if it is something you oppose? I asked for a respectful dialogue, and you two are tongue tied, resorting to name calling.
And yes, I am for separation of church of state. My whole point is that you two bitched and moaned about the folks out protesting Patty Berg's bill, which was reported on in the Reporter, and Carol equated the protesters with violating separation of church and state. Furthermore, the both of you frequently, as pointed out by others, lump people into groups so as to better invalidate their opinions. As rightfully pointed out, a lot of folks are opposed to assisted suicide are not opposing due to religeous beliefs. But, once again, I would respectfully point out, that protesting something as a matter of conscience, be it guided by religious beliefs, or some other motivation does not equate to a violation of separation of church and state. I know I am being a bit repetitive, but I want to make it clear, as Greg, you dont seem to be "getting it".
Finally, and let me be clear about this. Your jumping in and inferring that somehow I am attacking your wife is over the top and lame. In fact you frequently do this, and really, it demeans her - she's an adult, she wrote an opinion piece, which is open for thoughtful, honest discussion, something it seems, that neither of you are capable of engaging in.
Paul
Paul,I'll take a stab at what Carol might be getting at,and I guess it's because I(sort of) see it in this way.The Quakers are protesting the war as a benefit to all,and not as an homage to a certain religion.And the pro-life group was protesting AS an homage to their religion,maybe without seeing that assisted suicide may be seen as a humane act by someone who either has or knows someone with a terminal illness.
Take that as you will,but I did try to tackle that point.But,I'm atheist and wish that churches would quit pushing agendas solely for the "supposed" sake of their religion.
Appreciate the feedback Mark, but I would venture a guess that there are those who have a much in the same way that Quakers do, there are those, not necessarily myself, who would view protesting assisted suicide because they see this as detrimental to all, much in the way that the quakers view their protest as to the betterment of all. And Mark, I would love to discuss what your take is on how acts upon matters of conscience. I dont necessarily agree with you in the sense that it doesnt necessarily have to be "churches pushing agendas for the sake of their religion" to paraphrase you. I believe that individuals can be compelled to act upon matters of conscience, and thier right to protest certainly does not evoke matters involving separation of church and state. That has been my point all along.
I havent stated my opinion on assisted suicide, I am merely addressing folk's right to protest, be it because they feel compelled by religeous beliefs as some do, or other reasons not involving religeous belief, as other people have pointed out that they do.
Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyFuSvk3QIM
Bravo's out in the woods scaring the wildlife.
"and really, it demeans her"
Nonsense. I think it was very romantic for Greg to stand up for his wife. Right on, Greg!
Paul, have you ever heard of this thing called the "return key"? If you press it now and then while you write, it will make smaller paragraphs that are easier to read than one big fat block of longwinded verbosity.
Paul asks reaonable questions and he's polite. One simply cannot hope for better treatment in a blog thread.
And separated paragraphs really do contribute to legibility.
Wow! I haven't checked this post for since yesterday.
Thanks, Greg, for protecting me. You are a loving husband and want only best for me!
Paul, what is your question? It is hard to follow your writing.
Mark, thanks for trying to answer.
1:06, I agree. Greg is romantic.
My experience was that I read the ER article that I referred to in my opinion. I listened to the protesters on KMUD news, calling Patty Berg "Evil", and equating this bill with abortion. This bill is a totally seperate issue from abortion. It is a totally seperate issue from the war in Iraq.
"Separate" - sorry for the mispelling.
", it will make smaller paragraphs that are easier to read than one big fat block of longwinded verbosity."
LOL, point taken,1:11, CPR & Carol.
I will try and make better use of paragraphs.
Carol, the question is:
When the Quakers protest the war as a matter of conscience, how is that any different from the folks who are protesting assisted suicide as a matter of conscience.
Are you trying to say that a
matter of conscience somehow has more weight if it somehow isnt shaped or formed by religeous values?
Paul
"Thanks, Greg, for protecting me. You are a loving husband and want only best for me!"
I will say that that's pretty lame.
What, pray tell, is Greg "protecting" you from?
Have you been attacked in any way?
When you pen an opinion piece, you should be prepared to debate it, albeit in a civil manner, from those who have differing opinions.
Again, it seems to be a pattern with you two - that when you are faced with tough but reasonable questions, you resort to namecalling, and the other spouse jumps in and "defends" the other.
Should I go get my mother or wife to defend me?
"When the Quakers protest the war as a matter of conscience, how is that any different from the folks who are protesting assisted suicide as a matter of conscience."
Well war and assisted suicide are two entirely different things.
In one case you have people protesting the mass-murder of innocent civilians. In the other case you have people protesting other people's right to die when and how they choose.
The Quakers are protesting against wars in which people are being killed involuntarily. They are supporting people's right to live. They're not interfering with them, but protesting those who take their lives away against their will.
In contrast, those who protest assisted suicide are interfering with people's right to control their lives and their own deaths.
Right on 8:41
Greg is an idiot and not romantic.
If Carol can't answer a question this is not an attack.
If you both can't take criticism then perhaps you should stay off the blogs and quit writing op-ed pieces.
Ahh, but HR, that is exactly my point. Of course they are two completely different issues.
But people protesting either one as a matter of conscience/religious belief is NOT a violation of separation of church and state.
Thats the thing, are you going to apply a differing set of standards depending on what the issue is?
With respect, I'd love to hear your answer HR.
Paul
ps, if you can stand to go through my previous, longwinded and verbose comments above, I think that you can see that all along, I have said the issue is not about the protests themselve, but rather the rights of the protesters.
And, believe it or not, I would just as admantly support the right of the quakers and buddhist fellowships to protest the war.
I like the answer of Humboldt Resident and will ditto it. As I said before it is a separate issue.
Paul, 8:41, and 9:13, you are entitled to your opinions as we all are. I wrote my opinion piece, signed my own name to it, and had it published. WHat is your beef? And no, we don't have to stay off the blogs. How silly.
Paul,you see far more signs at pro-life esq. protests which religious depiction on them,then you would at an anti-war protest.Noboby including myself is arguing that they don't have a right to protest.
Months back at the Eureka city council meeting when they shot down Chris's gay marriage piece,the majority who spoke against it,did so in the name of defending their religion,and that gay marriage was a threat to their belief system,and most even tried to constrew quotes from the bible itself.
And again in this instance,the Quakers who spoke,spoke in favor of it,as a matter of social justice for all,even if they were using quotes from the bible.
Would allowing Terri Shiavo to continue to suffer in horrible pain and eventually passing on regardless,instead of letting her go in a more painless and humane way,been an act of social justice?
"Noboby including myself is arguing that they don't have a right to protest"
Respectfully disagree with that Mark. Carol was trying to inject the whole separation of church and state into the issue, when it is a matter of one's right to protest matters of conscience.
And once again Mark, I am specifically NOT talking about the issue being protested, merely pointing out the lack of consistency in Carol's stance.
Carol, since your in complete agreement with HR, can you kindly answer the questions that I posed to him ( and you earlier)?
To Wit:
"Ahh, but HR, that is exactly my point. Of course they are two completely different issues.
But people protesting either one as a matter of conscience/religious belief is NOT a violation of separation of church and state.
Thats the thing, are you going to apply a differing set of standards depending on what the issue is?
With respect, I'd love to hear your answer HR."
Paul, will you do me a favor and reread my opinion piece? I was not citing the protesters. I was citing the opponents referencing the Eureka Reporter's article.
Thank you, Mark.
The difference between Terry Shiavo and my friend, is that my friend was conscious as he was dying. As I understand the bill, a dying person has to make a conscious decision about whether or not they want to choose to die. It is not euthanasia.
"In medicine and psychology, an idiot is a person with a very severe mental retardation or a very low IQ level. Idiots were defined as people whose IQ were below 20 (with a standard deviation of 16). In the current classification, these people are now said to have profound mental retardation. The word is no longer used as a scientific term."
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot)
Yes, Carol, I remember the article.
Here's the link
http://www.eurekareporter.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?ArticleID=20774
Title of said article:"Assisted Suicide Bill Protested Outside Berg's Eureka Office"
The body of the article talked about the proteste
Greg, you shouldnt judge yourself so harshly. I mean I might call you a pompous gaseous windbag, but
I'm not one to attack.
If you truly think of yourself as an Idiot, perhaps you should get help.
Seriously, I dont need to attack or demean you, you do a great job of demeaning yourself, by not
engaging in debate, but rather stooping to namecalling and personal attacks.
That tells me you really cant rationally answer the questions or respectfully engage in thoughtful dialogue, unlike others here.
Paul
Oh Paul - this is great, I am so lol!
"Pompous Gaseous Winbag" is so on the money. If Greg and Carol both could simply respond to your questions perhaps they would'nt be subjected to so much well deserved criticism.
"But people protesting either one as a matter of conscience/religious belief is NOT a violation of separation of church and state."
I agree. If private people are protesting whatever, and the state has nothing to do with it, then separation-of-church-and-state can't be an issue.
12:09, Pray tell, how does one commit personal attacks and namecalling againsts anonymous parties?
Greg,
I believe I have signed all of my posts, but continue to obsfucate, deflect and not answer the questions.
But again, if the Idiot tag you apply to yourself fits...
Paul...Once again "greg", it's Paul
Paul, just a suggestion:
Might it not be best to just be happy you seem to have gotten the last word on the issue and let it go?
I'm sure there will be more other issues to argue about. Oh...excuse me; Other issues to discuss.
One other thing Greg,
If you think you are looking good in this debate, think again, my friend, (blind adoration from Carol not withstanding).
I have had respectful and civil conversations on this topic over the last several topic with many here on this thread. You seem to be the exception.
But, once again, that's you and Carol's longstanding tactic. If you get caught in faulty logic, you ignore until repeatedly called on it.
Carol finally answered by asking if I had read the article that prompted the her column in the ER.
I promptly linked the story, which in fact was about the people who were protesting outside of Patty Berg's office, which the two of you whined about and cried about how that was a breach of separation of church and state.
My whole point, which you chose to ignore, was that people have the right to protest matters of conscience. BUUUUT you chose to attack.
You chose to what you normally do when you or Carol have been asked to provide answers in response to your or her original comments -
you attacked, tried to deflect.
Really, I may be long winded and verbose here, (hopefully my paragraghs are a bit better though
:-) ), but at least I have been able to have honest discourse with people here, something that you seem unable to do.
Paul (Greg, that's Paul, if you didnt get it the first time).
Your right Fred, I'm done.
But, I'm not sure I did (until now).
Paul
Paul, if you would just read Lakoff, you would understand.
“Why dont you try answering the question? Why are you attacking? The questions are valid. Again, using Carol's logic, her Buddhist and Quaker friends are violating separation of church of state while they are out protesting the war. Why don’t you explain that?”
I don’t see how the two are comparable. There’s a vast difference between wanting to take your own life to end the suffering of terminal illness, and war. The only objection other than religious belief I’ve heard to assisted suicide is that it will allow people to get away with murder. When an intensely suffering loved one is begging you to help her end her life, to fulfill her dying wish under the current law, you become a murderer. For someone to tell you it’s against their personal beliefs so you can’t do it, that is vastly different than someone who is protesting war who is saying it is against my beliefs to kill, so it is wrong for you to ask me to go kill for you, and it is wrong for you to kill others who don’t wish to be killed. In either case, the insertion of faith is an unfortunate inevitability. Separation of Church and State is not nearly as tricky an issue as is separation of Church and brain, of faith and reason. Come at odds with someone’s faith based belief, and there is no further point to discussion. If the argument is we can’t allow assisted suicide because it goes against God, it’s not like you can call God to a hearing and get testimony. As soon as someone says I’m right because I believe I’m right and all they have to back it up is bible quotes, discussion is over. No amount of merit will hold sway.
There, long after anybody is paying attention, I got the last word (even if I did mostly repeat other posters)
Well Jeff,
You've completely missed the point...
It's about the protesters' right to protest, regardless of the thing being protesting. If you took just a moment to read the question IN CONTEXT, I think you'd see my point...
Unless of course you are a blatantly inconsistent hypocrite like Carol and Greg, in which case, its the cause which defines a person's right to protest (or not, on the grounds of separation of church and state).
Paul
"As soon as someone says I’m right because I believe I’m right and all they have to back it up is bible quotes, discussion is over. No amount of merit will hold sway."
Here's the thing, though Jeff, substitute it's a matter of conscience for "bible quotes" and you have the same thing...
As soon as someone says I’m right because I believe I’m right and all they have to back it up is It's a matter of conscience, discussion is over. No amount of merit will hold sway.
See what I mean?
Its about the rights of the protesters, and its not all about their ability to sway you one way or the other.
Paul
I do appreciate your points though, Jeff, and I believe that you'd find that we more than likely agree...
Paul
This comment has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home