Month: December 2011

A reader vouches for this report:

I'm an anesthesiologist and I've noticed that I never seem to see a sick physician undergoing futile end-of-life care. I've talked about this with my colleagues and we all agree that we would never want to be put through much of the end-of-life care that we routinely give to others.

So does another:

I work in end-of-life care, and I see this phenomenon all the time. I believe doctors eschew aggressive life-prolonging treatment because they've seen and understand the futility and suffering that are part and parcel of it. But I also believe it's because they're not making money off their own treatment.

Another shares a heartbreaking tale:

My 85-year-old very ill and very spirited father died in May. He was told that nothing more could be done for his advanced condition. My dad terminated treatment and was preparing to go home for hospice. Minutes later, two senior physicians arrived with the "roll of the dice plan". They said there was one more thing to try which was a very very uncomfortable dialysis. Although they couldn't promise a cure or remission they said it was a "something to try" which would happen over three days time. My dad loved gambling and he took the chance.

After the second day of horrible suffering caused by the treatment he demanded to be taken off and wanted to go home. He died at home the next morning.

My siblings and I struggle every day with the terrible terrible suffering we witnessed our father go through. Had we known what we now know, we could have helped our father avoid the pain he endured during his last days and weeks.

The Texas governor's execrable ad gets a Romney remix:

A reader quotes me:

"Can someone tell me, outside a few hostile enclaves on the intolerant left, where in America people feel pressured not to call themselves Christians?" Can someone tell me where such a leftist enclave is?  I live in Berkeley, California, which, for obvious reasons, is often used in discourse on the right as shorthand for something like "where liberals rule the roost and conservatives / 'real Americans' are routinely eviscerated and spit-roasted."  Yet, Berkeley has a very large number of churches and other places of worship and is home to the Graduate Theological Union, which has the largest theological faculty in the United States.  Just plug "Berkeley churches" into Google maps and see for yourself.  We are lousy with churches.

It is absurd and ridiculous to imagine that in Berkeley, certainly a "liberal enclave", folks are routinely – or even occasionally! – given a hard time for their faith.  It's also an insult to the liberal embrace of First Amendment rights, which has special significance in Berkeley, to make such claims.

I defy you to identify a single "hostile enclave on the intolerant left" where people are generally attacked for their Christianity.  It just does not happen.  The mere postulation that such places exist are about as connected to reality as claims that there are places in the United States that have adopted sharia law.

Another differs:

There are, indeed, some places where there's a significant and real bias against Christianity – the professional academic world being one of the biggest. I am a junior academic at the beginning of my career as a professional philosopher and I feel tremendous pressure not to call myself a Christian. To do so openly in most professional settings could potentially be very damaging to my career.  And I really don't want to call the entire academic world a "hostile enclave of the intolerant left."

Now, as I say that, it is (of course) in no way intended as a defense of Perry. The man is a disgrace to my faith.

Another:

When unpacking Rick Perry’s recent ad, you didn’t unpack his time-worn Christianist trope that "they have outlawed prayer in schools." We hear this over and over again. It is absolutely false and nobody seems to call them on it when they say it.  Kids can pray in their public schools.  What is unconstitutional is for the teacher or other staff member to lead prayers of other peoples’ children on the taxpayers’ dime.  Here’s an excerpt from a circular from the National PTA and First Amendment Center (accessable here):

Generally, individual students are free to pray, read their scriptures, discuss their faith, and invite others to join their particular religious group. Only if a student’s behavior is disruptive or coercive should it be prohibited. No student should be allowed to harass or pressure others in a public school setting.

If doing so is relevant to the subject under consideration and meets the requirements of the assignment, students also have the right to express their religious views during a class discussion or as part of a written assignment or art activity.

How do you think Perry and his fellow Christianists would react if a teacher led a public school class in a wiccan chant or ceremony?  How about a prayer to Allah?  Nuff said …

Jeffrey Weiss has more on the myth that prayer during school is prohibited.

“What the fall out will be from last night nobody knows but it is not over until the fat lady sings, and even if you think David Cameron may have intervened, it is not up to him. He is neither a lady, nor is he fat,” – Guido Barthels, co-manager of the $2.5 billion Ethna AKTIV-E fund.

Alex Altman investigates:

Several Iowa Republicans suggest that all it will take is a snowstorm, since his fervent fan base would brave a blizzard that might deter the less committed. But for Paul to topple Gingrich and Romney, the final hurdle he’ll need to clear is the electability argument. Paul doesn’t look or sound like a traditional President, and in a year when defeating Barack Obama is the GOP’s primary goal, he needs to pitch voters on his ability to knock Obama off. Paul’s campaign has been heralding polls that show him performing well in a prospective general-election match-up, but RealClearPolitics’ average shows Obama with a 7.7-point cushion, on average, over the Texas Congressman. 

Compared with a 6.9 percent cushion against Gingrich. Look: if I were a Tea Partier and wanted a president who would simply say no to any new spending, and veto any bills that didn't slash spending, I'd support Ron Paul. He'd be hedged in by the Congress; but if you want someone who will not flinch, why not pick the dude who hasn't flinched from the get-go? Also: no new wars.

Olathe, Kansas, 3.15 pm

Apparently, it comes from an obsession with Isaac Asimov:

Newt Gingrich assumes the mantel of the history professor when it suits the occasion.  Other times he plays down his academic background.  When in professor mode he likes to recommend books.  None carry more weight in understanding his political and personal drive and his strategy to transform America more than the science fiction of Isaac Asimov.  The greatest influence on Newt Gingrich, the conservative Republican, was the liberal atheist Isaac Asimov.  Many in Newt’s generation, including me, read that stuff with great gusto and fascination.  It was marvelous entertainment.  Newt saw not just entertainment but a master plan using the Foundation trilogy as his political handbook, a guide to how one man creates a new force for civilized life.  Two thousand years ago Cicero observed that to be ignorant of history was to remain always a child.  To which we might add a Gingrich corollary:  to confuse science fiction with reality is to remain always a child.

Question? askandrew@thedailybeast.com Video archive here.

Felix Salmon is apocalyptic: 

Europe’s leaders have set a course that leads directly to a gruesome global recession, before we’ve even recovered from the last one. Europe can’t afford that; America can’t afford that; the world can’t afford that. But the hopes of arriving anywhere else have never been dimmer.

Buttonwood is equally glum:

[T]o sum up, if the analysts are right, the leaders are tackling the problems in the wrong way, won't get enough support from the ECB, won't prevent downgrades from the rating agencies and won't stop Greece leaving. Oh dear.

Ezra Klein is slightly more upbeat:

Does it solve Europe's crisis? The answer to this is clear: No. But then, it was never going to solve Europe's crisis. The question is whether this deal persuades German and the European Central Bank to act to solve the crisis. Everyone thinks that the real bargain here is that if Germany and the ECB get what they want out of the long-term deal, they'll do what's necessary to ensure the short-term survival of the currency union. And so far, Germany and the ECB seem pretty happy with the deal. So now we see whether they ever intended to save the euro zone. If they don't act soon, the idea that they ever will act loses credibility, and then Europe really falls apart.

Alex Massie thinks British interests have been ignored:

The biggest winner of all, it seems to me, is France. Nicolas Sarkozy has rebalanced a Paris-Berlin axis that has been ever more obviously tilted in Germany's favour. Germany remains an indispensable nation (and the key to curing eurowoes) but France has reasserted herself this week too. And she has done so, at least in part, at Britain's expense.

Claude Moraes, a Labour MEP, disagrees:

The real danger here is that Britain’s relationship with Europe may now fundamentally change. For those who eventually want Britain out of the EU completely, this is a step forward. For those who want us to be still engaged, while fighting hard for our own national interests, it is a step back. Sometimes it’s right to say no to Europe. But not at the creation of a new, informal bloc inside Europe. This is because any changes in the way Europe will govern its finances will inevitably also mean changes to the way Europe governs its economies. It’s likely now that the Single Market, our main benefit from EU membership, will adapt and change along with any informal Eurozone solution. Decisions on trade in Europe will slip from our grasp without a seat at the table, and we could find ourselves politically and materially much poorer as a result.

Nick Robinson fears that Cameron's veto will have consequences:

This veto is not the end of something. It is the beginning of a story whose end is quite unpredictable.

Bagehot likewise studies Cameron's actions:

In my version of the English language, when one member of a club uses his veto, he blocks something from happening. Mr Cameron did not stop France, Germany and the other 15 members of the euro zone from going ahead with what they are proposing. He asked for safeguards for financial services and—as had been well trailed in advance—France and Germany said no. That's not wielding a veto, that's called losing.

Simone Foxman wonders about legality:

There is still a huge legal mess to sort out. Whether the new treaty will be enforced by EU institutions or not remains unclear, as is the UK’s role in future proceedings, but it looks likely to be a massive legal stretch to use the existing EU institutions for this new treaty.

Yglesias zooms out:

The bottom line here is that you can't make contentious decisions with winners and losers while operating under a 27 country unanimity rule. The smaller 17 country Eurozone seems to work only because they operate under an "if France and Germany agree then it's unanimous" version of 17 country unanimity. But the UK has a history of national greatness and a small independent nuclear deterrent so they don't play by those rules. The price is "isolation" but so what? Meanwhile, Merkel is left to try to work out a 17 country "intergovernmental" agreement of some kind. Just remember that not only is the euro a currency without a state, it's not even a currency with a supra-national entity behind it. It's a currency of a sub-set of members of a supranational entity. 

I'm still absorbing the news and will have something up shortly.

Josh Marshall is unsure:

Mitt’s got a tight and iffy pivot to make super fast and in a climate where it’s hard to break through and people may not be eager to walk through a campaign charnel house. But he has to make it in the next four weeks to prevent the difficult to imagine possibility that Newt could sweep the opening primaries.

"Difficult to imagine?" Just look at the polls. First Read likewise thinks that attacking Gingrich will prove difficult:

Here's why: the attacks themselves on Gingrich are not easy to sell. Why? Because he has one golden ticket with most conservative Republicans: he did it; he led conservative Republicans out of a 40-year desert. So no ONE thing (Freddie Mac, three marriages, health-care mandate, Pelosi/global warming, criticizing Paul Ryan) will take him down like it could for another politician. 

Nate Silver is on the same page. Mainly because of this:

Yep, Gingrich has pure partisan cred that Romney cannot come close to. That's what people remember. What they don't remember is that within one year of taking over the Speakership, his approval rating was a dismal 31 percent, 63 percent of Americans said he was too extreme, and 60 percent said they could not trust him. In 1995, a full 80 percent of Americans said they would not like Gingrich to run for president.

It took him a year to implode as a public figure. Can you imagine him gaining on Obama in the next year the more people get to know him or remember the full picture? And recall this: even now, before any of that barrage of negative attacks, Obama beats Gingrich by the same margin he beat McCain.

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

CMU professor Kiron Skinner, recently named to GOP presidential candidate and former House speaker Newt Gingrich's national security team, says she was misquoted in a story Monday about her appointment. She said her quote was: "I've been a supporter of Speaker Gingrich for a long time because I've seen him in numerous professional circumstances…" The published quote was "… numerous unprofessional circumstances …"