Elizabeth's Cancer

John Edwards on yksi Yhdysvaltain presidenttiehdokkaista vuoden 2008 vaaleissa. Hanen vaimonsa on sairastanut rintasyopaa kolmisen vuotta. Se oli jo saatu kuriin, mutta on nyt palannut ja levinnyt kylkiluihin. Jokaisella on sanottavaa siita, mita Johnin pitaisi tehda: jattaa ehdokkuus ja hoitaa vaimoaan on ollut usein toistuva mielipide. Mutta onko se ensinnakaan toisten asia, miten Edwardsien perheessa syopa kohdataan? Eivatko he itse saa/joudu siita paattamaan? Onko "oikeaa" tapaa kohda syopa tai kuolema? Susan Madrak kirjoittaa aiheesta vahvan mielipiteen.


By Susan Madrak

I'm not surprised, but I'm still appalled at the number of people who feel compelled to tell Elizabeth and John Edwards what their priorities "should" be. One of the most common scolds is that they have very young children, and so John Edwards should quit running and devote all his attention to his family.Well, excuse me. I don't see anyone telling Lynn Cheney to quit her job and take care of Dick, what with his serious cardiac conditions. Come to think of it, I don't hear anyone telling Dick to quit his job so he can stay alive long enough to know his daughter Mary's baby.

We have such a strange, conflicted attitude toward death in this country. And when someone is stricken with something like cancer, we (the societal we) rush to the barricades and insist on an all-out fight - well, to the death, which seems to me is only a form of denial. How dare we have rooms in our lives for anything else?

We are a generation of control freaks, convinced we can master anything with enough effort. We can fix it, or we can wish it away. And when you get cancer, people seem to expect that it should become a full-time job.

We forget this is not a binary choice. We are not living or dying; we are living and dying. (As someone once wrote, "Life is a ship we get on, knowing it will sink." The only difference with a terminal illness is, we now have the advantage of seeing land on the horizon.)

So why is it so unthinkable that Elizabeth Edwards has decided to live while she is dying?

And who are these people who have the audacity to demand that her husband's election campaign come to a screeching halt because they're convinced it will somehow be more reassuring to the Edwards children? "Yes, Daddy was running for president but Mommy will probably be dead in a few years, so it's very important that we all stop whatever else we were doing and concentrate Only On That."

Imagine a young child who now has to spend those years waiting for the other shoe to drop. This is what far too many busybodies are now proclaiming as the right, "caring" thing for the Edwards family to do.

Molly Ivins's breast cancer returned twice, and this last time took her. No one would have blamed this enormously talented and charismatic writer if she decided to lay off the keyboard in favor of acting as if she was already dead and buried - but by God, Miss Molly would have scorched the ears off of anyone who dared to suggest she should, and we're all the better for it.

Cancer time lines have averages. Some people have less time than average, some have more. Despite advanced pancreatic cancer and his age, my dad lasted far longer with his than anyone expected. I was grateful for that additional time, but I also knew he was dying. It was not all that taxing to hold those two thoughts at the same time.

I visited my ex-husband the day before he died. He wasn't taking it well; he said he'd done everything the doctors told him to do, including an exhausting stem cell transplant, but he put up with it because they told him he could expect two more years as a result. He'd been in denial almost to the last day of his life, and now he was very, very angry.

Life was funny that way, I said. No one really knows how long they have; I might leave the hospital that night and get hit by a bus, crossing the street on the way to the parking garage. "You can spend whatever time you have left resenting the fact that you don't have more time, or you can just live," I said. "You have a life ahead of you, whether it's a few hours, a few days or a couple of weeks. It's up to you what you want to do with it."

He nodded. The next morning, he died peacefully while they were doing a liver scan.

My point is, I guess, is that whatever Elizabeth Edwards and her husband decide to do with what time she has left is nobody's else's damned business.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-madrak/the-cancer-scolds-explain_b_44245.html

Mr. Gore Goes to Washington

Al Gore testified before Congress today about global warming. America is finally beginning to listen. Even those, who have opposed the very idea of climate change for ideological reasons. This is good.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6477891.stm

Don't Cry For Reagan

Paul Krugman kirjoittaa, etta on turhaa itkea Reaganin peraan (konservatiivien lempipuuhia viime aikoina); Reagan olisi ollut samanlainen kuin George W. Bush presidenttina, jos hanella olisi siihen ollut mahdollisuus. Mutta olosuhteet eivat sallineet sellaista puritanismia viela 80-luvulla.

March 19, 2007

Paul Krugman: Don’t Cry for Reagan

Paul Krugman says there's no reason to shed any tears over Reagan's lost legacy:

Don’t Cry for Reagan, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: As the Bush administration sinks deeper into its multiple quagmires, the personality cult the G.O.P. once built around President Bush has given way to nostalgia for the good old days. The current cover of Time magazine shows a weeping Ronald Reagan, and declares that Republicans “need to reclaim the Reagan legacy.”

But Republicans shouldn’t cry for Ronald Reagan; the truth is, he never left them. There’s no need to reclaim the Reagan legacy: Mr. Bush is what Mr. Reagan would have been given the opportunity.

In 1993 Jonathan Cohn ... published an article in The American Prospect describing the dire state of the federal government. Changing just a few words ... makes it read as if it were written in 2007.

Thus, Mr. Cohn described how the Interior Department had been packed with opponents of environmental protection, who “presided over a massive sell-off of federal lands...” that “deprived the department of several billion dollars in annual revenue.” Oil leases, anyone?

Meanwhile, privatization had run amok, because “the ranks of public officials necessary to supervise contractors have been so thinned... Agencies have been left with the worst of both worlds — demoralized and disorganized public officials and unaccountable private contractors.” Holy Halliburton!

Not mentioned..., but equally reminiscent of current events, was the state of the Justice Department under Ed Meese, a man who gives Alberto Gonzales and John Mitchell serious competition for the title of worst attorney general ever. The politicization of Justice got so bad that in 1988 six senior officials, all Republicans, ... resigned in protest.

Why is there such a strong family resemblance...? Mr. Reagan’s administration, like Mr. Bush’s, was run by movement conservatives... And both cronyism and abuse of power are part of the movement conservative package.

In part this is because people whose ideology says that government is always the problem, never the solution, see no point in governing well. So they use political power to reward their friends, rather than find people who will actually do their jobs.

If expertise is irrelevant, who gets the jobs? No problem: the interlocking, lavishly financed institutions of movement conservatism, which range from K Street to Fox News, create a vast class of apparatchiks who can be counted on to be “loyal Bushies.” ...

Still, Mr. Reagan’s misgovernment never went as far as Mr. Bush’s. As a result, he managed to leave office with an approval rating about as high as ... Bill Clinton... But the key to Reagan’s relative success, I believe, is that he was lucky in his limitations.

Unlike Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan never controlled both houses of Congress — and the pre-Gingrich Republican Party still contained moderates who imposed limits on his ability to govern badly. Also, there was no Reagan-era equivalent of the rush, after 9/11, to give the Bush administration whatever it wanted in the name of fighting terrorism.

Mr. Reagan may even have been helped, perversely, by the fact that in the 1980s there were still two superpowers. This helped prevent the hubris, the delusions of grandeur, that led the Bush administration to believe that a splendid little war in Iraq was just the thing to secure its position.

But what this tells us is that Mr. Bush, not Mr. Reagan, is the true representative of what modern conservatism is all about. And it’s the movement, not just one man, that has failed.

Meidan piha

Maaliskuun alussa oli viimeinen lumipyry. Koulut olivat kiinni ja lapset kotona tekemassa lumiukkoja. Tama kuva on meidan etuovelta.
(Klikkaa kuvasta niin naet paremmin!)

Vaalien voittajat

(Kuva Hesarista)

Onneksi olkoon Kokoomus ja Vihreat! Molemmat ovat voittajia Suomen eduskuntavaaleissa. Mitahan se tarkoittaa? Tyontekoa, yrittajyytta ja vihreita arvoja? Mikas siina! Suomessa on paljon hyvinvointia niin tasaisesti jakautuneena, etta ei ehka loydy toista niin egalitaarista yhteiskuntaa. Ei kuitenkaan saa pitaa tasa-arvoisuutta ja hyvinvointia itsestaanselvyytena. Suomalaiset ovat kovalla tyolla, rehellisyydella ja hyvalla koulutuksella paasseet tahan asti. Ei ole viela kuitenkaan aika taputtaa itseaan selkaan ja sanoa etta jo riittaa.

Mita Kokoomuksella ja Vihreilla oli sanottavanaan, etta heita kuunneltiin?

Iraq Exit Strategy

Gays in the Military

Alan Simpson, a former republican senator writes in the Washington Post about how he changed his mind about gay citizens of this country. He evolved from bigotry and suspicion to openness and acceptance. His opinion below.

Bigotry That Hurts Our Military

By Alan K. Simpson
Wednesday, March 14, 2007; A15

As a lifelong Republican who served in the Army in Germany, I believe it is critical that we review -- and overturn -- the ban on gay service in the military. I voted for "don't ask, don't tell." But much has changed since 1993.

My thinking shifted when I read that the military was firing translators because they are gay. According to the Government Accountability Office, more than 300 language experts have been fired under "don't ask, don't tell," including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. This when even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently acknowledged the nation's "foreign language deficit" and how much our government needs Farsi and Arabic speakers. Is there a "straight" way to translate Arabic? Is there a "gay" Farsi? My God, we'd better start talking sense before it is too late. We need every able-bodied, smart patriot to help us win this war.

In today's perilous global security situation, the real question is whether allowing homosexuals to serve openly would enhance or degrade our readiness. The best way to answer this is to reconsider the original points of opposition to open service.

First, America's views on homosexuals serving openly in the military have changed dramatically. The percentage of Americans in favor has grown from 57 percent in 1993 to a whopping 91 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds surveyed in a Gallup poll in 2003.

Military attitudes have also shifted. Fully three-quarters of 500 vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan said in a December Zogby poll that they were comfortable interacting with gay people. Also last year, a Zogby poll showed that a majority of service members who knew a gay member in their unit said the person's presence had no negative impact on the unit or personal morale. Senior leaders such as retired Gen. John Shalikashvili and Lt. Gen. Daniel Christman, a former West Point superintendent, are calling for a second look.

Second, 24 nations, including 12 in Operation Enduring Freedom and nine in Operation Iraqi Freedom, permit open service. Despite controversy surrounding the policy change, it has had no negative impact on morale, cohesion, readiness or recruitment. Our allies did not display such acceptance back when we voted on "don't ask, don't tell," but we should consider their common-sense example.

Third, there are not enough troops to perform the required mission. The Army is "about broken," in the words of Colin Powell. The Army's chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, told the House Armed Services Committee in December that "the active-duty Army of 507,000 will break unless the force is expanded by 7,000 more soldiers a year." To fill its needs, the Army is granting a record number of "moral waivers," allowing even felons to enlist. Yet we turn away patriotic gay and lesbian citizens.

The Urban Institute estimates that 65,000 gays are serving and that there are 1 million gay veterans. These gay vets include Capt. Cholene Espinoza, a former U-2 pilot who logged more than 200 combat hours over Iraq, and Marine Staff Sgt. Eric Alva, who lost his right leg to an Iraqi land mine. Since 2005, more than 800 personnel have been discharged from "critical fields" -- jobs considered essential but difficult in terms of training or retraining, such as linguists, medical personnel and combat engineers. Aside from allowing us to recruit and retain more personnel, permitting gays to serve openly would enhance the quality of the armed forces.

In World War II, a British mathematician named Alan Turing led the effort to crack the Nazis' communication code. He mastered the complex German enciphering machine, helping to save the world, and his work laid the basis for modern computer science. Does it matter that Turing was gay? This week, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said that homosexuality is "immoral" and that the ban on open service should therefore not be changed. Would Pace call Turing "immoral"?

Since 1993, I have had the rich satisfaction of knowing and working with many openly gay and lesbian Americans, and I have come to realize that "gay" is an artificial category when it comes to measuring a man or woman's on-the-job performance or commitment to shared goals. It says little about the person. Our differences and prejudices pale next to our historic challenge. Gen. Pace is entitled, like anyone, to his personal opinion, even if it is completely out of the mainstream of American thinking. But he should know better than to assert this opinion as the basis for policy of a military that represents and serves an entire nation. Let us end "don't ask, don't tell." This policy has become a serious detriment to the readiness of America's forces as they attempt to accomplish what is arguably the most challenging mission in our long and cherished history.

The writer was a Republican senator from Wyoming from 1979 to 1997.

Hammasraudat

Lapsella on isot hampaat eika tarpeeksi tilaa suussa. Ennen vedettiin liiat hampaat pois jotta saataisiin tilaa; ei enaa. Ortodontti (mikahan on oikea sana suomeksi?) laittaa sellaiset kojeet suuhun (kuvassa alaleuan koje), jotka levittavat leukaluita ja tekevat tilaa hampaille. Kun kaikki hampaat ovat suussa - noin 13-vuotiaana - laitetaan "oikeat" raudat suuhun jotka oikovat kaikki hampaat. Vain taydellinen hymy on tarpeeksi hyva Ameriikassa.

A Hundred Years

Sata vuotta on naisilla ollut aanioikeus, ainakin joissain maissa. Yksi isoaitini oli kolme-vuotias, ja toinen syntyi kaksi vuotta sen jalkeen, kun suomalaiset naiset saivat aanioikeuden 1906, maailmassa, jota miehet hallitsivat. Amerikkalaiset siskot saivat aanestaa 1920 ja sveitsilaiset vasta vuonna 1971.

Unohdin juhlia naisten paivaa torstaina; parempi myohaan kuin ei milloinkaan: onnea kaikki maailman naiset! (Viela on kirveella paljon toita.)

Women have had the vote for a hundred years - in some places. Finland was one of the first. One of my grandmothers was three years old, when women got the vote in 1906, and the other was born two years after!

Finnish women have always had to work hard to support their families. The luxury of staying at home and being idle was not an option for most; Finland was poor and women had to participate in the public sphere alongside their men. The Victorian ideal of a delicate, pretty child bearer did not fit into the Finnish culture of the 19th century. Finnish women were strong and active, and participated in the common struggle for independence from Russia.

Now we have a woman president, and it's no big deal. Congratulations, women of the world!


Thu, 03/08/2007 - 10:53am.
by Preeti Aroon

AFP/Getty Images

Women and men around the world today have been celebrating International Women's Day, which has been observed now for nearly 100 years.

And how things have changed in the past century. In 1907, New Zealand and Finland were the only countries where women had full voting rights. In the United States, women didn't get the vote until 1920. It took all the way until 1971 for Swiss women to gain suffrage. Most recently, in 2005, Kuwaiti women at last gained access to the ballot box. And now, for the first time, a woman is a credible candidate for U.S. president.

I often reflect on how life has so radically changed for women in my own family. Neither of my grandmothers, who lived in India, had a high school education. One got married at age 13 and had her first child at 16. My mother was able to attain a college degree in India, and by the time she was the age that I am now, she was a married stay-at-home mom in the United States with two kids. Today, I am a woman who has a graduate degree, works a full-time job, and is nowhere close to having kids.

How fast women's roles have been changing!

As we reflect on achievements, though, let's not forget that much work still needs to be done. Today, sixty million girls are not in school. Preferences for sons has led to gender imbalances in parts of India and China. And in sub-Saharan Africa, women's lower social status is causing them to get infected with HIV in higher numbers than men.

It all makes me wonder: In 2107, how will women be doing?

Preeti Aroon |

permalink |

Seattle in March

Eduskuntavaalit

Kavin Hesarin vaalikoneella testaamassa, kuka Suomessa ajattelee niin kuin mina. Sain useita senioripuolueen ehdokkaita, keskustalaisia, muutaman kokoomuslaisen, ruotsalaisen, vihrean ja skp:laisen! Olen kai sen verran amerikkalaistunut, etta en sallisi lapsiperheiden kayttaa (maksutta) paivahoitoa, jos yksi vanhemmista on kotona, ja haluaisin opiskelijoiden maksavan ainakin pikkuisen lukukausimaksua opinnoistaan. Luulen, etta vastuuntunne kasvaa kun kaikki ei tule ihan valmiina. Toisaalta olen Turkin EU-jasenyyden kannalla, jos Turkki tayttaa ehdot; ja kannatan homo-ja lesboparien adoptio-oikeutta. En osaa oikein sanoa ydinvoimasta juuta enka jaata - vaarallista kai se on, mutta mitka ovat vaihtoehdot?

Alkoholista sen verran, etta suomalaiset ovat viela liian herkkia alkoholisoitumaan, etta olisi varmasti parempi lisata viinan hintaa. Kun kayn Suomessa humalaiset "hyppivat silmille".

Suomessa menee nyt hyvin. Toivon etta meno jatkuu. Ja etta uusi sukupolvi viitsii viela tehda tyota...

New Face!

I just realized I have been writing this blog now for a whole year! I wasn't sure where this was going to end up and how long I would last. But here it is, a year later - it's time for a fresh look and hopefully, new, inspired stories! Thanks to all of you who have faithfully stopped at this page to see what's happening in my world.

I would like to encourage you to send me comments, stories and feedback on what you read on these pages. Let's hear it!

Huomasin tanaan, etta olen kirjoittanut tata blogia jo kokonaisen vuoden! En alussa tiennyt mihin asti jaksaisin ja viitsisin kirjoittaa, mutta tassa sita ollaan, vuosi takana pain. On aika luoda uudet kasvot ja toivottavasti uudet, jannittavat tarinat. Kiitos teille kaikille, jotka olette uskollisesti kayneet sivuillani lukemassa ja katsomassa minun maailmaani. Nyt olisi aika kuulla teistakin jotain - kirjoittakaa kommentteja ja juttuja, ja antakaa palautetta rohkeasti!

T

Tarjan Paiva

Iloisia hetkia Tarjan-paivan viettoon! Meilla ainakin oli hauskaa!

Vein aamulla munkkeja toihin, jotta muutkin saisivat nauttia Tarjan-paivasta. Taalla ei nimmareita vieteta, joten se on aina eksoottista kun kerron siita.

Vaikka olen nimestani ylpea, taalla Amerikassa siita on ollut paljon vaivaa. Ei siksi etta se olisi terroristin nimi, mutta kukaan ei osaa sita sanoa, ja kestaa kauan ennen kuin saan sen opetettua. Ne jotka "osaavat", kutsuvat minua nimella 'Thadia', ne jotka eivat, sanovat 'tadza' tai 'tatia' tms. Lempinimeni on vain "T".

Ann Coulter

Hate speech is alive and well amongst the republican faithful. Ann Coulter attacked John Edwards in order to get attention, by calling him a 'faggot'. The narrow-minded conservatives loved it. I find it so fascinating that people actually listen to the likes of Ms. Coulter, and feel good about themselves. Or maybe they don't feel good about themselves, and thus want to hate everyone else too.

AlterNet: MediaCulture: Ann Coulter's 'Faggot' Remark Smears Mitt Romney Too

Korealainen kylpyla

Kavin eilen korealaisessa kylpylassa. Se on vain naisille tarkoitettu kylpyla, jossa saa mita moninaisimpia hoitoja. Mina otin jalkahoidon ja hieronnan. Ja sitten oli tietysti monenlaista saunaa ja poreallasta ja kuumaa huonetta. Yksi sauna oli hoyrysauna, oikein mukava. Toinen oli "kuiva-sauna", eli ihan kuin suomalainen, mutta vetta ei saanut heittaa kiukaalle "sahkoiskuvaaran" takia. Loyly on juuri saunassa parasta, mutta sita ei maailmalla tiedeta.

Lumipyry

Eilen oli taas lasten koulu suljettu lumipyryn takia. Sita tulikin varmastikin kymmenen senttia; ja varsinkin maaliskuun alkuun outo tapahtuma. Yritin muistaa oliko minun kouluni Suomessa koskaan kiinni lumipyryn tai muun "luonnonoikun" takia. Lapsi kysyi. Enta sahkokatkon takia? En muistanut etta olisi. Onko muistini niin huono, vai olivatko olosuhteet niin vakaat 60-ja 70-luvun Suomessa? Lapsi on hiukan epaluuloinen - Suomessa olot ovat "aina niin paljon paremmat". Muisti kai tekee oikkuja...