John McCain, latte-sipping elitist
From the LA Times (HT Kevin Drum):
By midafternoon, both campaigns were in full battle cry and sought to portray the other candidate as living an ostentatious lifestyle. Both campaigns called reporters, rushed out scathing TV attack ads, unveiled new websites and unleashed surrogates. McCain, who huddled with advisors at his desert compound in Sedona, Ariz., said nothing in public. A nine-car motorcade took him to a nearby Starbucks early in the morning, where he ordered a large cappuccino. McCain otherwise avoided reporters.
Wait, wait….I thought only Democrats were latte-sipping elitists. OK, so it was a cappuccino. I’m not exactly up to speed on the semiotics of liberal elitism. Is a cappuccino more of an “regular guy” kind of beverage? Is it the iceberg lettuce, the hot dog, of espresso drinks?
Oh, no. Espresso is a man’s drink. Cappuccino puts you on the slippery slope to $4 mocha-cino lattes with whipped cream, etc. Espresso puts hair on your chest.
BTW, I don’t know what kind of coffee Pat Buchanan drinks, but I hear he likes a good Chardonnay.
And this has what to do with Catholicism?
About the rich having a hard time getting to heaven? OK. I’m quite sure that by the standards of 1st Century Palestine, both Obama and McCain (and most of us) are indeed rich.
John — wrong question. The right question is what it has to do with ANYTHING. Answer: Nothing. (Although maybe I could manufacture a connection to Catholicism via the etymology of “Cappuccino.”) But you’ll have to take this up with the McCain campaign, which has brought our national political discourse to this level over the past few weeks. See, for example, the first line of the Washington Post article on McCain’s gaffe: Sen. John McCain’s inability to recall the number of homes he owns during an interview yesterday jeopardized his campaign’s carefully constructed strategy to frame Democratic rival Barack Obama as an out-of-touch elitist….
Maybe he drank it out of a dirty cup.
Chipped.
You know, when John McCain was a POW, he was not allowed to have any kind of foam cap on his drinks – when they did give him drinks – certainly none with nutmeg or cinnamon sprinkled on top. I think those who would scoff at what he is drinking now fail to remember that he is was a POW and so deserves a few more foam caps than the rest of us. Those of us who have not been a POW should stop taking foam caps for granted and instead appreciate them for the little bit of heaven that they are.
Don’t know about this but the Vatican seems to be ignoring a concrete case of racism in Italy which our contributors here should get on.
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/11893
Eduardo,
Washington Post – nice objective source.
No one needs a “carefully constructed strategy to frame Democratic rival Barack Obama as an out-of-touch elitist.” That’s like having a carefully constructed strategy for framing Mickey and Minnie as cartoon mice! He is what he is and it reveals itself every time he opens his mouth in an unscripted environment.
Regular people understand being an elitist has nothing to do with wealth, or houses, or what you drink. It has to do with having contempt for the things that average people hold dear – especially when you think you do it for their best interests.
Some of the richest, most powerful people I have met are the most down to earth and I know a lot of elitists who make a lot less money than me. It is about attititude and belief – not whether you use a special fork for the shrimp cocktail.
“Some of the richest, most powerful people I have met are the most down to earth and I know a lot of elitists who make a lot less money than me. It is about attititude and belief – not whether you use a special fork for the shrimp cocktail.”
Sean, I couldn’t have put it better, and surprised to find myself agreeing with. And surprised you’ll be voting for Obama. Why the sudden change of heart?
Not that I think this thread issuper vital, but
Sean, please define “regular people.” Does that mean someone who thinks like you???
David – Like I said, attitude and belief – I’ll just keep clinging to guns and God and maybe, just maybe a real smart Harvard guy will fix all my problems for me. Maybe even fix my soul!
Bob,
Definitely not – I am a Typical White Person.
Joe,
And those of us who have never been POWs should not judge a man who came home from Vietnam, found his formerly beautiful wife disfigured and crippled from a horriffic automobile accident, and ran all over the country having affairs until he met a very rich younger woman and divorced his wife for her. One must never criticize a former POW, because their character must be superior to ours.
An interesting article on the successes of the Bush administration and that Mr. Bush may come to be as revered as Harry Truman.
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10309&sent=1
Another note:
The virtues of one candidate are not increased by pointing out the failures of another.
Discussions should be about the issues – abortion, for example.
David Nickol: Word!
Also, don’t forget serving the divorce papers to his first wife while she was in the hospital. Clearly, this was a POW possibility made available to McCain, but not to the rest of us.
Discussions should be about the issues – abortion, for example.
Yes, abortion can never be discussed too much. But the reason we don’t get to discuss it that much in this election is because the right is too busy accusing Obama of promoting infanticide. I guess the pro-choice movement is frustrated that American voters are too little concerned about abortion, so it’s necessary to up the ante.
Sean,
Strike “typical”
David – wow. I love how the “judge not” crowd acts when they let their hair down. Just as nasty as the rest of us mortals.
I don’t think anyone is saying McCain is immune from criticism because he was a POW – at least I’m not. Remember, I don’t like him much as a candidate. I’m settling for the lesser of two numbskulls they way I see it. But this, he’s an elitist line is going nowhere.
I’m curious why no one is wondering why this “journalist” asked the how many house question in the first place. Kind of an odd question unless you have some kind of an agenda in mind. People – oh yeah regular people – don’t like agenda driven quizzes – remember the whole “name that head of state” garbage the last time around.
David: Nobody is saying Obama is *promoting* infanticide – only that he does not believe it should be illegal. But the issue is not this belief, per se, which is not really that uncommon in liberal circles and is most elloquently advocated for by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, who is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton, but his apparent lying about his vote on the matter in the IL legislature.
Sean,
We have to choose between the two of them, so some judgments are in order.
The POW thing is taken way too far. In an article exploring whether McCain might have heart the questions and answer during Obama’s part of the Saddleback forum, I came across this:
I would not ever minimize what John McCain went through in Vietnam. But the fact that he was a prisoner of war does not guarantee every aspect of his character. I actually wouldn’t judge him too harshly for “living it up” after five and a half years in hell. Who might not have reacted that way? But I think anyone would agree that brutal way he treated his wife after he got home was, objectively speaking, horriffic. So I don’t take the fact that he was a former prisoner of war as a guarantee of every aspect of his character.
In a strange way, I find myself sympathizing with McCain.
Were I to win the lottery – of which marrying an heiress is the equivalent – I, who also am unaccustomed to the particulars of managing portfolios of real estate and other investments, might be a little vague as to whether it’s four homes or eight (or is it ten)?
“I have a mansion, forget the price.
Ain’t never been there they tell me it’s nice.
I live in hotels, tear out the walls.
I have accountants pay for it all. ”
(C’mon, everyone join in!)
“They say I’m crazy, but I have a good time.
(Everybody say oh, yeah…..OH,YEAH)
I’m just looking for clues at the scene of the crime.
Life’s been good to me so far.”
Nobody is saying Obama is *promoting* infanticide – only that he does not believe it should be illegal.
Nobody is saying what?
Power Line Forum | Obama Advocates Infanticide.
http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/38017
Text shows Obama backed infanticide
worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73040 – Similar
Here’s the audio of Obama endorsing Infanticide from the floor of …
http://www.daylife.com/article/0cT94R5ckJ9Cy
Nurse says Obama supports infanticide
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11799
Obama’s for infanticide; it is not an overstatement to say so.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_082208/content/01125100.html
But the issue is not this belief, per se, which is not really that uncommon in liberal circles and is most elloquently advocated for by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, who is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton, but his apparent lying about his vote on the matter in the IL legislature.
I have been over all the pertinent documents, including transcripts of the sessions of the Illinois legislature in which Obama spoke on the subject, and accusing him of even being indifferent to infanticide or believing it should be illegal is a very serious distortion, if not a deliberate lie. Obama’s views are not even close to Peter Singer’s.
Correction
I have been over all the pertinent documents, including transcripts of the sessions of the Illinois legislature in which Obama spoke on the subject, and accusing him of even being indifferent to infanticide or believing it not should be illegal is a very serious distortion, if not a deliberate lie.
David: Well, I certainly walked into that one and I stand corrected – apparently there are idiots out there who are accusing him of promoting infanticide. But I too have read the primary documents from both the committee hearings and the April 4, 2002 floor debate and, in my personal opinion, for you to say he does not think that a greater societal good is sometimes served via infanticide – and therefore its practice should not be made illegal – requires a reading of those transcripts which give new meaning to the English language.
Regarding his views and Mr. Singers, with whom I often disagree, but hold in the highest regard, and in my opinion, is one of the most intellectually honest – and from an internal consistency of his philosophy, certainly the most (although his decision not to euthanize his mother was intellectually disappointing in this regard) – of the secularists, there is probably not enough data out there to make a serious study of the matter. But, based on Senator Obama’s statements, (excluding the last 6 months, but certainly through March 2008), his voting record, and his political temperament, I don’t think such a comparison is unreasonable to make. I think one can fairly accurately infer the Senator’s views on population control, physical disabilities and illnesses, and zoophilia and those likely align closely with Mr. Singers. On animal liberation issues, the Senator’s views are most obscure, and in fairness, I truly am most unclear on his views on granting rights to non-homo sapiens – unfortunately he has not commented yet on the new Spanish laws in that regard, for example .
What goes around comes around. Anybody remember when LBJ lambasted rich East Coast Democrats by calling them “cheese eatin’ intellectuals”?
Then there was Adlai Stevenson’s ex-wife who wrote “The Egghead and I” to try to discredit his campaign.
And, working into the more distant past, there were fears that Woodrow Wilson, as a former college prez, had been in the Ivory Tower which had made him too ga-ga to run the country.
I’m not sure whence this strain of anti-intellectualism in America–or how Obama, who put himself through college for the most part, got tarred with it. (Though now we’ve got Joe Biden, Regular Guy, to balance the ticket. I hope they installed his jaws with an “off” switch.)
Our own revolution was largely waged by the moneyed and educated at Harvard or William and Mary who were smart enough to figure out that Britain was siphoning off their supply of capital without allowing them any say in the matter.
I think we’ve seen what having a “regular guy” in the White House for eight years has done to the economy, to the welfare of the poor and marginalized, not to mention the grand tradition of American political rhetoric (e.g., “Is our children learning?”)
I say it’s time to pick up them shrimp forks and start the New Revolution!
Sean, I”m still not sure what the definition of elitist you’re using is, and what the failure is that it involves. It has something to do with “contempt” for ordinary people, and their values, I think.
Is it “high culture” v. “low culture”? So someone who prefers Beethoven to Jimmy Buffet, the ballet to Nascar? Is it the making of that judgment that’s the problem? Or is it saying that people who value Talladega Christianity (to borrow from Austin Ruse) are less worthwhile human beings than people whose sensibilities might be described as Palestrina Christianity?
Elitist is just another label folks like to throw around when they don’t want to seriously discuss issues – a kind of impoverished ad hominem.
As I said, I don’t think this thread tends to be super vital….
Bob, I see your point. But it is a label that seems to have some rhetorical effectiveness. So why don’t we like elitists?
I think lables have rhetorical efectiveness because we can apply them to some we don’t like but can’t argue with reasonably.
I guess if we mean snob by the term elitist, we should say that.
I guess I see some merit in asking, in a democratic republic with both a house and senate, what kind of qualities we want in our leaders. Is a Harvard education a benefit or a liability? Why?
I think there are several factors.
1. Taste
2. book learning
3. practical experience
4. Sympathy and respect for others.
I think Pope Benedict, with respect to taste, learning, and practical experience, is an elitist. He likes Mozart, not Moby. He is immensely learned, and respects learning. I think he would not enjoy Nascar. He doesn’t have a broad set of practical experiences. At the same time, he seems to convey an openness to people, a respect for people, who do not share his tastes.
During the primary, some pundit or two or lebenty thousand, linked Obama’s supporters with Starbucks, Hillary’s with Dunkin Donuts. Perhaps this observation of McCain was along those lines, decrying the loss of a candidate for the donut shoppes?
Maybe this line of analysis is meant to show how out of touch Romney is, assuming he adheres to Mormon tradition and does not drink coffee.
As I said – not education – not taste – not wealth – but attitude.
The guns and God quote was quintessential elitism. Why? He said something condescending about the very people he says should support him in front of other like minded people that he would never say in front of the people he is talking about. He is entitled to lead because he knows what’s best for them even if they are too provincial or stupid to understand it themselves.
An elitist is someone who goes to Starbucks instead of Dunkin Donuts because he doesn’t want to be seen in the Dunkin Donuts. If he goes to the Starbucks because he likes the coffee better and it’s worth the extra money, he’s not.
“Regarding his views and Mr. Singers, with whom I often disagree, but hold in the highest regard, ”
MAT –
I share your respect for Singer. He has the intellectual courage to see that if a fetus is not a person in the womb because it still lacks certain human qualities, then, if the same organism lacks those qualities outside the womb they are not persons and do not have a human’s right to life. This for him logically leads to the acceptance of infanticide. I don’t share his conclusions because I don’t share his premises, but at least he is trying to be rational about the issue.
What disturbs me about so many pro-choice people is that they are unwilling to even look at the fundamental moral question in the abortion issue: is this organism, whether inside or outside the womb, a person? They then allow themselves to think that you may kill what is possibly a person in the womb but not outside the wormb. It’s very, very primitive moral thinking, if it is moral thinking at all.
“An elitist is someone who goes to Starbucks instead of Dunkin Donuts because he doesn’t want to be seen in the Dunkin Donuts. If he goes to the Starbucks because he likes the coffee better and it’s worth the extra money, he’s not.”
Not a bad definition. Though without the candidate saying, “I go to Starbucks I don’t want to be seen at DD,” how on God’s Green Earth do you discern something as elusive as that? It just becomes a gut feeling that gives performance more credibility than words and deeds.
What disturbs me about so many pro-choice people is that they are unwilling to even look at the fundamental moral question in the abortion issue: is this organism, whether inside or outside the womb, a person?
Ann,
I have found that, in online discussions at least, the pro-life people take it to be axiomatic that a person exists from the moment of conception. I would be in total agreement that it is difficult to argue there is an essential difference between, say, an 8.5 month fetus inside the womb and that same entity a few minutes later outside the womb. But what about an embryo a day after conception? Pro-life people are sometimes willing to discuss personhood, but only if the definition of person is formulated in such a way that it covers human life from the moment of conception. So while establishing when personhood begins is certainly essential in an abortion debate, when dealing with those who call themselves pro-life and are opposed to abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy, it is a pointless discussion.
The current controversy (“Obama supports infanticide”) is not at all about killing or letting die viable babies. Rather, it is about the kind of care that must be provided to aborted fetuses that cannot possibly live. Some in the pro-life movement (whom I would call extremists) have redefined infanticide to mean allowing to die a pre-viable fetus that survives briefly outside the womb. Even though it cannot possibly be saved, this is now “infanticide” in their propaganda. Of course, they are careful to be vague enough so it is difficult to tell what they are saying without carefully reading between the lines.
The Starbucks versus Dunkin Donuts comparison strikes me as a little odd. How exclusive can Starbucks be when there is one on every corner? It’s kind of like comparing Domino’s Pizza and The Olive Garden. It would be difficult to deny there’s a difference, but who would walk past an Olive Garden restaurant and say, “Look at all those snobs”?
David,
I agree, but I was going with the original post. The point is that elitism is about how one looks at himself and others in relation to him.
Jean,
As far as discerning, I don’t think it is too difficult. That is why I don’t think the elitism lable will work on McCain. Sure he’s rich, and you can point to other things that people will use to make the point, but it just doesn’t wash – it’s not him. I don’t say this because I am a big McCain fan – I’m not. Conversely, this is why the accusations that Obama is seen as an elitist because of GOP propaganda are silly. It’s not because he went to Columbia and Harvard or that he like arugala. You can’t make an elitism lable stick if people don’t feel it – it won’t work.
The other thing to keep in mind is that no one is bothered too much by the elitist they agree with. I know of a lot of elitist conservatives I love to listen too. It’s when you don’t agree or you are on the fence that the elitism tag hurts a candidate.
“Pro-life people are sometimes willing to discuss personhood, but only if the definition of person is formulated in such a way that it covers human life from the moment of conception. So while establishing when personhood begins is certainly essential in an abortion debate, when dealing with those who call themselves pro-life and are opposed to abortion for any reason at any stage of pregnancy, it is a pointless discussion.”
David –
I agree entirely. There is no arguing with someone who has already made up his mind, and in abortion discussions conservative Catholics all too often are mainly trying to defend what they claim is an infalllible teaching of the Church. Infallibility is really the fundamental issue for them, not abortion, and they’re not going to budge on it. Their position is fundamentally determined by their own version of the faith and by their assumption that the Church has given persuasive — and explicitly infallible — arguments against killing fetuses at any point during gestation. But I think that no such definitive, infallible statements have been made, nor have persuasive arguments against abortion been presented,
From what I’ve read, Obama voted against the law in question not because he’s for killing babies but because he said there was a better law already on the books, a law endorsed by the Illinois midical associatioon. (Sorry, I forgot where I read it, but it was a credible source.)
I agree that the pro-lifers have re-defined “infanticide”. It used to mean deciding to actively kill or abandon a child whether viable or not. (Remember Oedipus?) Rhetoric seems to be their preferred method of persuasion. I’m very, very much against killing persons, inside the womb or out. but I have never joined a pro-life group because of their irrationality. I wish somebody would form a group which is both pro-life and rational.
“That is why I don’t think the elitism label will work on McCain”
It is surprising to me how many people are so insecure that they would worry about the attitude of someone they are never going to meet.
An elitist is someone who would support a particular elite social class (say, like an aristocracy or an oligarchy). Leave it to the post-Reagan right to transpose this to someone on the basis of what kind of coffee he drinks.
David: So when does personhood begin? And more importantly, when does it end? And how ill or handicap does a homo sapiens have to be before it is not “viable”? Is “viability” a condition of personhood? Is personhood only applicable to homo sapiens?
I think “elite” shouldn’t be a term of opprobrium. I think there is a distinction between merit-and training based elitism, on the one hand, and snobbery and shallow, social-climbing self-promotion, on the other.
The Navy SEALS are elite–they think they’re better at what they do than everyone else is, and they are better. Olympic athletes are elite–they think they’re better athletes than other people, and they are.
What’s the matter with having a president who is well-educated, with good judgment, and who believes that he is capable of leading precisely because he has those qualities (among others).
Do we really want someone “just like us” to be president?
Isn’t “elitism” being used in an elitist way? The elitist is being rejected because he is not like ordinary people. Now the true and good people are the ordinary, and the elitist are being disdained as out of the circle.
If that is not confusing enough for anyone, I think I can get my cousin’s Star-On machine if anyone wishes to become one of the best Sneetches on the beaches.
“is this organism, whether inside or outside the womb, a person?”
“Viability” is not a significant category for determining if a fetus is a person. Independence, as in an organism is an independent living thing, is the prime factor. That is why Ann’s question is a red herring: once you have determined that what is in the womb is a distinct organism, personhood follows. But if what is in the womb is not “an organism”, even though it is basically the same as the infant after being born, it does not have the rights of persons, who must be organisms.
IOW, there is an essential difference between being in the womb and being out of it. Between being physically intertwined with the mother, and being apart from her. Between not breathing and breathing. Those need to be taken into consideration when determining if something is an independent organism, and therefore a person.
So when does personhood begin? And more importantly, when does it end? And how ill or handicap does a homo sapiens have to be before it is not “viable”? Is “viability” a condition of personhood? Is personhood only applicable to homo sapiens?
MAT,
I realize there are a number of lawyers here, and I am not one of them, but here’s my take anyway.
Until somewhat recently, under American law, based on common law, personhood began when a human infant was born alive. However, that was before the Federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act (and a number of state versions of that act). Now, under federal law and the laws of those states, personhood begins when a human infant is born alive. To the best of my knowledge, “born alive acts” don’t change anything.
I don’t know if “viability” is a concept used for anything other than human fetuses or prematurely born babies. It means the infant cannot survive and grow into a human child and a human adult no matter what current medical science does for it. (Presumably there will come a day when a human can be taken from conception to birth in a totally artificial environment, in which case the concept of viability will no doubt vanish.) As I understand it, nonviable fetuses born alive are persons, in that a birth certificate is issued, but I am not sure why that is important, because they can’t possibly survive for more than a few hours. Anti-Obama forces appear to be defining infanticide as the death of a nonviable fetus that survives briefly outside the womb. They are objecting to the death of an infant that can’t possibly survive. Of course, those who believe life begins at conception would consider any successful abortion murder. But it seems a gross distortion to me to say that a nonviable fetus that survives briefly, and is given palliative care, is a victim of infanticide. It’s a victim of abortion, and it still is, and still dies, under born-alive infant protection laws.
The severely disabled, the sick, and the elderly are all persons provided they were born and are alive. Now, have some philosophers argued that the severely disabled are not persons? I haven’t read them, but I think the answer is yes. Is there a movement to legally redefine person to be less inclusive than it is (a human being who has been born and is alive)? I certainly don’t know of one.
I don’t know whether the concept of personhood enters into the idea of refusing or withholding futile or heroic care. I don’t think it does. And disproportionate or heroic or futile care is the issue you get into with the profoundly disable, the very sick, and the elderly. Legally, they are all persons with a right to life. Even in the very difficult case of Terri Schiavo, no matter what side you were on, no one questioned her status as a person with a right to life.
As far as I know, there are no laws that deal with nonhumans who might plausibly be considered persons. I do think that at some point laws might be needed. It’s my opinion that the odds heavily favor intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and although the odds of humans bumping into it are vanishingly small, I would hope that if someone like ET arrives on Earth, he will instantly be regarded as a person even before there are explicit laws to that effect. Also, it doesn’t seem implausible to me that there will be machine intelligence that will qualify for personhood.
Now, what I am saying is reliable only to the extent that I have read and understood the right laws and documents and articles, particularly in the last few days while I have been arguing Obama is not “pro-infanticide.” I can’t say that I am right about everything, but the one thing I can say for certain is there is a tremendous amount of sloppy thinking and distortion going on out there.
David said: “Anti-Obama forces appear to be defining infanticide as the death of a nonviable fetus that survives briefly outside the womb. They are objecting to the death of an infant that can’t possibly survive.”
You are mischaracterizing the law – it does not ONLY apply to non-viable fetuses. It applies to BOTH viable and non-viable. As a practical matter, however, you are likely correct – these fetuses are likely all non-viable. Here is a link to the text of the law for your reference: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=1082&GAID=3&LegID=3910&SpecSess=&Session=. I realize you don’t want to call it infanticide for political reasons, but what term would you suggest for it? Euthanasia, perhaps? I imagine you would object to “involuntary manslaughter”, which is probably the legally apt term.
At what point does the terminally ill become non-viable? Or the elderly? What should we call refusing to provide medical care to the non-viable elderly? I mean, they can’t possibly survive forever.
David said: “As far as I know, there are no laws that deal with nonhumans who might plausibly be considered persons. ”
Please refer to the German constitution: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002/05/18/germany-rights.htm and http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/06/21/germany.animals/index.html. See also Spain: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14mon4.html.
Regarding the Terri Schiavo case, certainly there were those who questioned her status as a person – that was the whole point of the debate – was she entitled to the rights under Federal law that the non-disabled are entitled to, in particular the 14th Amendment. Senator Obama, for example, during the 20th Democratic presidential debate on February 26, 2008 in Cleveland, called his vote on the matter his worst mistake as a public servant. S. 686, the bill in question, granted Mrs. Schiavo Federal Habeas Corpus. As you may be aware, that is the right any person convicted of a capital crime is entitled to after their death sentence is affirmed in State Collateral Review.
Sorry, I don’t think the IL legislature link worked above. It’s short, so I’ll just paste it here.
093_SB1082
LRB093 10540 MKM 10794 b
1 AN ACT concerning infants who are born alive.
2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
3 represented in the General Assembly:
4 Section 5. The Statute on Statutes is amended by adding
5 Section 1.36 as follows:
6 (5 ILCS 70/1.36 new)
7 Sec. 1.36. Born-alive infant.
8 (a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any
9 rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various
10 administrative agencies of this State, the words “person”,
11 “human being”, “child”, and “individual” include every infant
12 member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any
13 stage of development.
14 (b) As used in this Section, the term “born alive”, with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
24 (c) A live child born as a result of an abortion shall
25 be fully recognized as a human person and accorded immediate
26 protection under the law.
27 Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon
28 becoming law.
Unagidon,
“Leave it to the post-Reagan right to transpose this to someone on the basis of what kind of coffee he drinks.”
Hold on there cowboy. Are you saying Eduardo is part of the post-Reagan right? Read the original post.
My point was that it has nothing to do with what coffee you drink or what school you went to.
My other point is that when you take a gaffe about something like how many houses a rich man has and try to tag him as an elitist, it won’t work unless he really is one (or at least people perceive him that way).
Cathleen,
Nothing wrong with being elite, but that’s not what bothers people. Indeed, Americans love elites. It also isn’t about snobbishness. It is about a sense of entitlement.
You mean the kind of entitlement that would cause someone to be given a plum assignment because of who his father was, even after graduating in the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy?
Or do you man the kind of entitlement that would cause a woman to claim that she was an only child at the funeral of her father even though her two half-sisters were sitting right there in the front row of the church where she was speaking?
What kind of entitlement do you mean? Because if you can’t say with anything approaching clarity, then “elitist” is just a euphemism for “someone I don’t like or agree with.” Which is what the rest of us already believe it to be anyway.
Also, the next time someone calls someone a “latte sipping elitist” you can tell the speaker that Regular Joes, including policemen LOVE lattes — and mocha frappuccinos and all of the other high calorie high high falutin drinks they serve at Starbucks. As I work in the tourist capital of America, I can tell you FOR CERTAIN that Starbucks is a primo tourist destination for the typical midwestern family. And the local police in my town always go to Starbucks.
Do you think the average American can’t tell a good cup of coffee from a bad one or pass up the opportunity to add a zillion calories to something that would otherwise have no calories at all? Are you SURE you live in the same country I do?
It seems to me that Obama’s lack of experience, his stand on various moral issues, his failure to support the surge which has had some success, etc., should give people plenty of arguing points against him.
So what is this nebulous conversation about “elitism” really about. What’s the beef? The suggestion that that Obama would rather be seen in Starbucks than Dunkin Donuts? The fact he went to Harvard? The fact that he “talks down” to people? A sense of entitlement?
Without providing any real concrete examples–words, deeds, things we can observe and understand–it all begins to sound like some of the folks here are circling around something perilously close to “uppity black person.”
Jean: But there are real examples, such as his comments about clinging to God and guns, etc.. To call the “elitism” charge some sort of proxy for racism seems a non-sequitur to me. And regarding the use of the phrase, “uppity black person” – I think you mean to say “uppity black man”, the words Justice Clarence Thomas used at his confirmation hearings; if you are somehow comparing the treatment of Senator Obama to that of Justice Thomas during his confirmation hearings and continuing really to this day, you must be joking. To say that the comparison between the two shows a malicious and callous disregard the dignity of Justice Thomas is the understatement of the year, and while we as a nation have grown accustomed to the verbal lynchings of Justice Thomas all too frequently, I think it is safe to say, that Senator Obama – who at last count graced the cover of Time Magazine for his 8th time, has had nothing even remotely approaching the experience of Justice Thomas, either in his youth or today as he runs for President.
You are mischaracterizing the law – it does not ONLY apply to non-viable fetuses.
MAT,
No, it applies to all fetuses (or infants) born alive. But the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975 was (still is) in effect, which fully protected viable fetuses at minimum. Here’s the pertinent passage from a recent account in The Chicago Tribune:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-abortion-obama_20aug20,0,1470841.story
Here is a link to the Illinois Abortion Law of 1975
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1928&ChapAct=720%C2%A0ILCS%C2%A0510/&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&ActName=Illinois+Abortion+Law+of+1975.
The important point is, of course, that although Obama voted against or blocked a number proposed abortion laws, viable fetuses were already fully protected, Therefore, in judging what Obama said and did, it must be kept in mind that if his actions had any impact at all, it would be on pre-viable fetuses.
I realize you don’t want to call it infanticide for political reasons, but what term would you suggest for it?
No, it is the virulently anti-Obama forces who want to use the word infanticide, and doing so is a serious distortion. Death of a pre-viable fetus as the result of abortion is death by abortion, whether the fetus dies inside or outside the mother’s body.
Obama never argued against the prevailing law, which said that live-born, viable infants should be saved (or at least it should not make a difference whether the infant arrived in the world through abortion or premature birth – they should be treated the same). He did argue that a doctor in Illinois who performed an abortion thinking the fetus was not viable, and then after the abortion discovered he might have been wrong, should not be obligated to call in a second doctor to evaluate and provide appropriate care for the infant. But he argued that a second doctor was not needed for the care, because the original doctor would feel obligated to provide it.
What I see are desperate “pro-lifers” who hate Obama because he is such a staunch defender of abortion rights, who are faced with a general public who does not really get all that upset about abortion, so the pro-lifers make charges of infanticide.
If indeed one stretches the definition of infanticide to mean allowing nonviable fetuses to die after being born alive from an abortion, then anyone who supports abortion is guilty of promoting infanticide, because inevitably some aborted fetuses will live briefly, will (hopefully) be given comfort care, and will die.
The issue of the sick, the disabled, and the elderly is dealt with every day in hospitals all over the country, and I am not aware of any current controversies. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doctors, using their best judgment, withholding life-prolonging treatment to patients who will not benefit from it. Some cases will involve tough calls, but that doesn’t mean doctors should not make the judgments. So the issue of when care is heroic or futile and not in the best interests of the patient is really not an issue here, so long as doctors make the same decisions for aborted babies as they make for prematurely born ones. And I don’t believe Obama is on record arguing there should be a different standard.
One final point. Neither the Illinois nor the federal born-alive acts, in an of itself, mandate any kind of care for infants. The idea behind them is to amend every existing law and regulation to change the meaning of the word person in it. So far, in the various discussions I have been in, nobody has been able to give an example of a law that has changed as a result of the Illinois law or the federal law. It seems clear to me that the federal version passed in the Senate with unanimous consent because it changed nothing. Now, if the Illinois version would have changed nothing,
I think you mean to say “uppity black man”, the words Justice Clarence Thomas used at his confirmation hearings; if you are somehow comparing the treatment of Senator Obama to that of Justice Thomas during his confirmation hearings and continuing really to this day, you must be joking.
MAT,
The concept of the “uppity black man” has been around for hundreds of years, and the phrase itself far predates Clarence Thomas.
David Gergen on the McCain campaign’s depiction of Obama as an uppity black man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfXvK84MPqQ
David: Agreed. I am not suggesting Justice Thomas invented the phrase – in fact, that was the whole context in which he said it, that his treatment was a modern version of the lynching of a black man, but since it was in quotes and the Justice’s usage of it was the most well known in recent history, I just assumed Jean was referring to that. But is the etymology of the phrase that important to the issue, which is that calling Senator Obama “elitist” is some form of character assassination that rises to the moral equivalence of malicious racism? I know there are a lot of racial slurs and stereotypes out there, but “elitist” is typically not one of them that I am familiar with. That charge feels to me like it embodies the concept that any criticism of the Senator’s character is racism.
MAT, I did not have Justice Thomas in mind when I wrote my post, though weaving that strand into the thread and swinging away on that tack, thereby dodging any evidence that supports Obama’s elitism and why this should be of such vital importance is a quite an astounding feat.
More astounding is why McCain supporters feel their candidate, who has quite a good record by any standards, and who has shown himself willing to work in a bipartisan way during a long Senate career, needs to be supported with nebulous charges of “elitism” against his opponent.
Honestly, when I voted for McCain in not one but two primaries, the fact that he wasn’t some type of an elitist didn’t enter into the picture whatever.
And you still haven’t demonstrated a) how Obama is an “elitist” nor b) how this elitism matters.
MAT, I don’t think “any criticism” of Obama smacks of racism; just criticism that revolves around hazy concepts like “elitism.”
Criticize his stand on abortion, on guns, his theology, his lack of experience, his failure to support the surge that seems to be working. Support McCain’s record. Demonstrate how he is better qualified to pull our nation out of its problems at home and abroad.
The deeper you go into the intangibles, the less credible you (and by association) your candidate look.
Jean said: “I did not have Justice Thomas in mind when I wrote my post, though weaving that strand into the thread and swinging away on that tack, thereby dodging any evidence that supports Obama’s elitism and why this should be of such vital importance is a quite an astounding feat.”
You give me too much credit – no nefarious weaving of the loathsome Justice Thomas into the conversation was intended. I meant to cause no offense and I offer my apology.
Jean said: “And you still haven’t demonstrated a) how Obama is an “elitist” nor b) how this elitism matters.”
Let me take (b) first – I personally don’t care about it, but some voters do. I would imagine that is why Eduardo wrote this blog posting. Regarding (a), I would, for the second time, and for the record, such as one exists, offer the following excerpt of remarks Senator Obama made at a San Francisco fundraiser on Sunday April 6, 2008:
“But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
I would imagine that for people who do care about one’s level of elitism, that those remarks, for example, would be considered by those people to be elitist.
So how is this observation “elitist”?
And I made no imprecations about Judge Thomas whatever. Why do you feel the need to characterize him as “loathsome”?
Sorry, don’t mean to play post bombardo. I’m just an old and slow thinker.
Jean: The definition from the American Heritage Dictionary of elitism is as follows:
“n. 1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2. a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.”
If I were someone in a “small town in Pennsylvania” and a Church-goer and member of the NRA, for example, I would perceive these remarks as someone who, by virtue of his perceived superior intellect and financial resources, wanting to “get [me] persuaded”, via the police power of the state, to, for example, detach from “guns or religion” or “make progress” in my daily life.
See, MAT, I AM somebody who lives in a small Midwest town (population 1,700) in one of the most consistently Republican counties in the state. I counted six Obama signs in front yards on the way home from the beauty shop this morning. And not one McCain sign.
Our town is situated 40 miles west of Flint, Mich., where the GM jobs dried up long ago, and where nobody can afford NOT to shop at Wal-mart and Dollar General, which has, of course, killed locally owned businesses, lowered the tax base and increased neediness.
We have fallen through the cracks. We are bitter. We are holding on to our religion because our churches organize spaghetti suppers to help people pay for their chemo. It isn’t that the money does much to help, but it helps the families feel less alone.
We have clung to our bows and rifles because during deer and turkey season they put food on the table.
I don’t hear people talking against immigrants so much–we have a lot of Hispanics in our parish and a lot of second generation Poles, Czechs and Germans. But I do hear a lot of anti-trade talk, resentment that corporations have outsourced to other countries that sell their junk back to us (see Wal-Mart and Dollar General) above.
I also hear a LOT of concern about the Iraq war because small town kids, who don’t have the wherewithal to go to college, often gravitate to the military as a way into a career. People hung out yellow ribbons for a few years, but the tide started to turn when kids started getting deployed several times or having their tours extended indefinitely. Signs started appearing under the yellow ribbons that said “Support our troops; bring them home,” something I never thought I’d see in this town.
As far as I can see, Obama’s pretty much right about small-town life. I think more people here see empathy than elitism in the statement you quote.
Jean: Gotcha. So hopefully the Senator can get elected and people can stop going to church and hunting and things can go back to the days before people did that.
Like Jean I grew up in the Rust Belt and unlike Jean I am a Rust Belt refugee. What is elitist is the smug attitude of people like MAT that people living in these small towns couldn’t possibly be bitter.
But MAT seems not to have read the definition very carefully. To recapitulate:
“n. 1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2. a. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.”
Where did Obama imply or state explicitly that people of “his” group deserve favored treatment?
There are true elitists — Followers of Ayn Rand, like Alan Greenspan, are unashamedly elitist, but they tend to vote Republican.
People who think that “only” Christians deserve to hold high elective office are elitists, as are people who think the Lord’s Prayer should be recited in school and at public events.
Maybe we should all reread the dictionary from time to time so we can stop casting lazy aspersions on others.
David said: “If indeed one stretches the definition of infanticide to mean allowing nonviable fetuses to die after being born alive from an abortion, then anyone who supports abortion is guilty of promoting infanticide, because inevitably some aborted fetuses will live briefly, will (hopefully) be given comfort care, and will die.”
I don’t want to continue to hijack this thread, so this will be my last post on the topic, but call it whatever, let’s say “pre-viable fetus abortion” or PVFA, for short. With PVFA, we are talking about prematurely born babies who can live up to 72 hours being left to die – this is not a sack of microscopic cells or angels on the head of a pin we are talking about here – these are 16 to 22 week old babies who can live outside the womb for potentially up to a few days for goodness sake. I must subconsciously be one of the “virulently anti-Obama forces”, because I am having a hard time believing that opposition to this bill does not reflect an antipathy to human life, and the weak and vulnerable in particular, and for what? To satisfy the powerful and extremely wealthy pro-choice lobby so there is not some remote chance of a lawsuit filed against an abortion practitioner because the doc didn’t get a second opinion the the viability issue? That’s change I personally don’t want to believe in.
Barbara: It’s not the “bitter” part that some may perceive as elitist – it is the “cling”. That people only go to church or hunt because the government is not filling that void in their life for them and they are substituting those things for that. And of course the Senator thinks he deserves favored treatment – he is asking for people to vote for him for president of the United States instead of Senator Clinton or Senator McCain, etc. because Senator Obama perceives he is superior to them and he wants to lead the nation in the highest executive office in the land with all the police powers inherent in that. How does that not satisfy #2b? Even if you don’t agree, it is not out of the realm of possibility that some may make a reasoned judgement that he would fall under the definition of #2b. And Senator Obama may be superior and deserving of favored treatment!! Why is the term elitist so offensive? This is not some unsubstantiated ad hominem. It is a personal opinion formed through thoughtful consideration (I mean, we are parsing the dictionary definition of “elitist” for goodness sake) based on statements such as the above, actions, temperament, etc..
MAT, I don’t think Obama hopes to free us from our guns and religion; he’s merely to try to alleviate the larger national problems that guns and religion can’t solve–the trade deficit, health care crisis, war in Iraq, rising debt, rising food and gas prices, etc. etc.
However, in expressing concerns that Obama might be out to undermine religion and our right to bear arms, which the Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of, then you’ve at last raised some real issues instead of this silly semantical battle over “elitism.”
we are talking about prematurely born babies who can live up to 72 hours being left to die – this is not a sack of microscopic cells or angels on the head of a pin we are talking about here – these are 16 to 22 week old babies who can live outside the womb for potentially up to a few days for goodness sake. I must subconsciously be one of the “virulently anti-Obama forces” . . . .
Here’s the simple answer. It does not appear that either the Federal or the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act changed in any way the manner in which any born-alive infant, pre-viable or post-viable, would be treated.
Check this out from the American Academy of Pediatrics on the federal law:
http://www.aap.org/nrp/instres/instres_born-alive.html
Obama’s nonsupport or blocking of these bills in the legislature did not allow the mistreatment of any infants to continue, because it apparently wasn’t happening in the first place (the original complaints were investigated and no wrongdoing was found) and particularly because the born-alive acts did not change anything about the way any infants are treated.
This whole topic was covered 40 or 50 years ago in Hofsteader’s Anti-Intellectualism in America. (not to mention Dr. Seuss’s The Sneetches)
But I suppose that is the nature of anti-intellectualism, that the unexamined life just repeats itself without correction. The problem now is that “effete snobs” like Bush and Rove use these insights to manipulate the “unelite”, and continually nominate their elite — children of admirals and senators — instead of the children of working class families, single mothers, etc.
David: I said I would give you the last word, so I hope you don’t consider this a breach of my pledge, but since this just hit my inbox – I haven’t even read it yet myself, but I thought I would post the link – it is FactCheck.org’s take on the “Born Alive” bills in Illinois.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html
MAT,
It’s one of the most balanced and rational pieces I have seen. What they don’t touch on, and what I wish someone would explore, is whether the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act Obama voted against would actually have changed anything. It finally passed in 2005, but with the following three provisions added:
Given those provisions, what exactly could the law do?
By the way, ‘Dancing Queen’ is a great song! So are, from McCain’s list,
Roy Orbison – ‘Blue Bayou’
The Beach Boys – ‘Good Vibrations’
The Platters – ‘Smoke Gets In Your Eyes’
The only great song (and it’s very great) on Obama’s list is ‘What’s Going On’ by Marvin Gaye.
Old standards, like Sinatra songs, don’t count, and neither do toweringly great moments from classic movies.