Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Сегодня прочёл в New York Times любопытный факт о Нэнси Пелози. Как многим уже известно, лидер демократов в Палате Представителей Нэнси Пелози после только что прошедших выборов становится спикером Палаты, официально - третьим человеком в стране (по списку замещающих должность президента в чрезвычайной ситуации: после самого президента и вице-президента). Впервые в истории США на этом посту оказывается женщина. Нэнси Пелози 66 лет, у неё пятеро внуков.

Так вот, как раз к выборам подходило время одной из её дочерей подарить ей шестого. Поздно вечером во вторник, когда Нэнси уже спала, её разбудили помощники. "Что, родила?" - спросила Пелози. "Нет, на проводе президент. Позвонил поздравить вас с победой демократов на выборах и грядущей должностью спикера".

Мне кажется, Пелози - правильная бабка. Одобряю.


Nov. 9th, 2006 06:30 pm (UTC)
I take it as a resounding "yes" :)
Nov. 9th, 2006 06:48 pm (UTC)
Surely. The curious thing is that for some people this position is an anathema. Even more interesting is that the same people call themselves "pro-life". In other words, they want to make sure that a kid is born (even if the mother is not ready) - and they do not care if the kid dies of some disease (because for them health care should be a privilege, not a right). And they are quite passionate abouth both items.

Curiosier and curiosier.
Nov. 9th, 2006 07:00 pm (UTC)
In their minds, it is all resolved rather simply: it is the Creator's will to save or to let die, in both cases. Divine intervention is all it is about (until they have to go see a doctor).
Nov. 9th, 2006 07:07 pm (UTC)
The last note (in brackets) is important: when it is about their own health, health care becomes a right.

Actually, they seem to think that due to their virtue they have a number of rather unusual rights. The right to send lewd messages to teenage pages. The right to hire gay prostitutes. The right to snort drugs. The right to steal public money. The right to take bribes. Etc., etc.
Nov. 9th, 2006 07:33 pm (UTC)
wow... this is so out of line!
Nov. 9th, 2006 07:39 pm (UTC)
What do you mean?
(no subject) - ex_increp708 - Nov. 9th, 2006 07:41 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - scholar_vit - Nov. 9th, 2006 07:51 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ex_increp708 - Nov. 9th, 2006 08:31 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - scholar_vit - Nov. 10th, 2006 04:54 am (UTC) - Expand
Nov. 9th, 2006 07:15 pm (UTC)
Well, it is about lifestyle, social roles, family values etc. (many children imply a traditional family, no gay trouble, masculine men and feminine women, father hunts a paycheck, mother suckles the young etc.)
Nov. 9th, 2006 07:11 pm (UTC)
Anathema, basically because this means higher taxes. The idea is that the poor are poor, because they are, well, lazy; so if they do not have healthcare, "why should I pay for them with dollars".
Nov. 9th, 2006 07:20 pm (UTC)
Actually it is even more interesting. There is an old notion that poor health is the God's punishment to a sinner. As well as poverty itself. So a poor sick person is probably paying for his or her own sins; why should a virtuous right-wing Christian meddle in God's justice?

I have seen a curious offspring of this idea in a reader's letter to Wash Post. The letter said, "I excersize every day, and I have a good health. Why should my taxes pay for some slob who does not keep himself in shape?" As you can see, this gentleman also considers a disease to be a punishment, for the sin of poor excersize habits.
Nov. 9th, 2006 07:22 pm (UTC)
Интересно. Я об этом не думала. Т.е. понимала, что "бедные сами виноваты", но не думала, что это "за хрех".
Nov. 9th, 2006 07:29 pm (UTC)
Мне казалось, что это подробно разбирается в исследованиях по протестантской этике. Собирание богатства - добродетель. Тот, кто этого не делает - грешник и сам заслужил Божье наказание. В общем "так поди же попляши" в масштабе всего общества.

Элемент имено Божьей кары за проступок тут центральный. Бедный не просто неразумен, он совершает смертный грех Лености.
(no subject) - pigbig - Nov. 9th, 2006 07:36 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ex_increp708 - Nov. 9th, 2006 09:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - saccovanzetti - Nov. 9th, 2006 09:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - ex_increp708 - Nov. 9th, 2006 09:28 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - saccovanzetti - Nov. 9th, 2006 09:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
Nov. 10th, 2006 04:46 am (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm in favor of universal health insurance. I think it's a good thing. But I cringe when people (usually liberals) refer to it as right. IMHO it is exactly a privilege. A civilized country must be clear to have 100% of its population privileged (wrt health care) and ashamed otherwise. But why is it right? Surely it's not stated as such in the Constitution nor is is ajudicated by courts. By no means it is a right.
Nov. 10th, 2006 05:09 am (UTC)
The English word "right" might mean both "legal right" and "social right":

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

Right \Right\, n. [AS. right. See {Right}, a.]
1. That which is right or correct. Specifically:
(a) The straight course; adherence to duty; obedience to
lawful authority, divine or human; freedom from guilt,
-- the opposite of moral wrong.
(b) A true statement; freedom from error of falsehood;
adherence to truth or fact.
[1913 Webster]

Seldom your opinions err;
Your eyes are always in the right. --Prior.
[1913 Webster]
(c) A just judgment or action; that which is true or
proper; justice; uprightness; integrity.
[1913 Webster]

Long love to her has borne the faithful knight,
And well deserved, had fortune done him right.
[1913 Webster]

2. That to which one has a just claim. Specifically:
(a) That which one has a natural claim to exact.
[1913 Webster]

There are no rights whatever, without
corresponding duties. --Coleridge.
[1913 Webster]
(b) That which one has a legal or social claim to do or to
exact; legal power; authority; as, a sheriff has a
right to arrest a criminal.
(c) That which justly belongs to one; that which one has a
claim to possess or own; the interest or share which
anyone has in a piece of property; title; claim;
interest; ownership.
[1913 Webster]

Born free, he sought his right. --Dryden.
[1913 Webster]

Hast thou not right to all created things?
[1913 Webster]

Men have no right to what is not reasonable.
[1913 Webster]
(d) Privilege or immunity granted by authority.
[1913 Webster]

I think we both can agree that health care is social right
Nov. 11th, 2006 05:08 am (UTC)
Arguing about legal rights is a normal thing because there is a reasonable well defined process to establish who is right ... I mean correct.

Talking about social rights, OTOH, is a waste of time because there is no way to determine who is wrong. Such an argument would typically come down to a pissing match. Which is exactly what we see in this case.

I agree that care is social right in the modern USA but it is not a universal social right. I'd have hard time arguing that the same applies to Ghana, Burma etc.
Nov. 11th, 2006 05:29 am (UTC)
It is simple. Legal rights are the area of courts. Social rights are the area of politics. So the real question here is this: do we, the citizens of the US, agree that any sick person should have some basic helath care even if he is broke? If we do, there is a social right to health care. If we do not, well, there is no such right.

Now it seems that there is growing consensus that the majority of people, if asked this question in this form, agree. That is why it is a federal crime for a doctor to leave a person dying even if he cannot pay. On the other hand some people on the right want to reverse this development. This is their right, of course. What they should not do, of course, is to use demagoguery and lies.
(no subject) - ny_quant - Nov. 12th, 2006 08:14 pm (UTC) - Expand



Latest Month

August 2018


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Paulina Bozek