Tuesday, May 19, 2009

Government Orders Parent Who Opted for Child's Alternative Cancer Therapy Arrested...







Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg issued an arrest warrant Tuesday for the mother of a 13-year-old boy resisting chemotherapy after the pair missed a court hearing on his welfare, while also ordering that Daniel Hauser (pictured above) be placed in protective custody so he can get proper medical treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma.

The same government that has been willingly manipulated by Pharmaceutical companies to try and outlaw vitamins and other supplements has now decided that free individuals can be forced to comply with government approved medical procedures against their will.

The cancer is considered curable with conventional treatments, but Daniel quit chemo after a single treatment and with his parents opted instead for "alternative medicines," citing religious beliefs. That led authorities to seek custody. Rodenberg last week ruled that Daniel's parents, Colleen and Anthony Hauser, were medically neglecting their son.

The family‘s doctor, James Joyce, said the boy told him he had pain on the right side of his chest, which Daniel rated a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Dr. Joyce said the pain was near where the port that was inserted into Daniel's chest to administer chemotherapy had been placed. He attributed the pain to the growing tumor, which is pushing the port out of place.

Daniel also told the doctor he had a cough, though he wasn't having any trouble breathing, Joyce said.

In his ruling last week, Judge Rodenberg declared that he would not order chemotherapy if Daniel's prognosis was poor, but if the outlook was good, it appeared chemotherapy and possibly radiation was in the boy's best interest, he wrote.

Daniel's lymphoma was diagnosed in January, and six rounds of chemotherapy were recommended. Daniel underwent one round in February but stopped after that single treatment. He and his parents sought other opinions, but the doctors and now the State appear to agree with the initial assessment and seek to enforce it against the Hauser’s will.

45 comments:

Dr Pablo said...

The traditional medico's have a lot to answer to.
Lymphoma responds very good to natural treatments.
http://alternative-cancer-therapies.info/testimonials/
User name password
and the password is password
If you or anyone facing the challenges of cancer would like help to do Alternative Cancer Therapies safely, please visit http://www.xyz-wellbeing.com/
we would be more then willing to help. God knows its hard enough with-out governments taking the rites of free men on the land away.

Writerfortruth said...

A kid named Billy Best ran away from home in the 90s to avoid chemo and made it on Inside Edition. He took a natural treatment called 714-X and something called Essiac Tea: all natural. This 90 percent chance of a cure crap they keep slinging around about chemo is a lie. Just think of the "Cancer Treatment Centers of America" ad on TV all the time now. I'm talking about the one where "Peggy" talks about her encounter with a doctor who told her she had no "expiration date." This case illustrates what's wrong with the justice system and health care in the same breath. Sad for America, I think. I took 714-X myself as a preventive for cancer. I only know the Billy Best story because my cousin talked to him before she took it when doctors gave her only three weeks to live after rigorous traditional treatment. About a month after she started treatment, my 7 year old cousin was riding in the family car when a bunch of puss just ooozed out her ear. The tumor behind her nose had simply dissolved and leaked out her ear canal, and a subsequent test proved it. She is healthy and in her 20s today. Go to www.suckssite.com if you have something like this to protest and learn what it takes to get your message out and protect your campaign in court if you have to.

Vilmar said...

I find what the government is doing appalling. What is worse is that nearly 80% of society who voted on this issue is on the side of taking away the rights of the parents (and for that matter, the child's as well).

I am all about holistic medicine. There is so much propaganda out there by the pharmaceutical companies to take this for that, and this for the side effect of that, and these for the everything else that is bothering you. Enough is enough. We need to fix our bodies the way it was meant to be fixed, with healing medicine. Killing poison with poison leaves you with one left behind in your body---the question is, which one?

I'm a recent graduate of Architecture school and opted to start a company with my business partners focusing on wellness products initially geared towards helping other architecture students get through the rigor and stresses of presentations and final reviews. But we think our products can be used by anyone undergoing stress. I wish we could help the parents and kids out some how. I support that they've stood up.

Anonymous said...

The comments here are so ill-informed it's almost painful. I'm an actual Hodgkin's survivor--third stage, nodular sclerosing, and the 90% number they're throwing around is a fact (that's Hodgkin's rates, not average cancer rates). Hodgkin's was one of the first cancers that really became super treatable with chemotherapy, and even though I had swollen nodes from my thigh to my armpit, two years out and I'm still good.

Untreated the side effects of the cancer itself are extremely painful and difficult to live with. Yes, the chemo was hard, but I can say with one hundred percent conviction that the cancer itself (regardless of the inevitable death at the end) was much, much worse. I've never been in that much pain in my life, and I've given birth. Doesn't even compare.

The longer that idiot mother lets this spread, the longer that kid has to stay in chemo for a completely treatable disease. This isn't 4th stage lung cancer, people. They're not prolonging his suffering--treated he will very, very likely live.

Nathan Weyer said...

The problem with 'natural' cures is they tend to make great anecdotal stories but fails under rigerous testing. If 1 in 10 people get better you hear about that 1 person over and over and the other 9 are ignored. Modern methods will tell you exactly what your chances are and are accountable.

People also forget that modern medicine is derived from natural medicine. People spend years trying to figure out what in the natural method makes it work, extracts that part, refines it, makes it safer and more effective, then packages it as a modern treatment.

You also never hear about all the side effects, allergic reactions, and nasty outcomes of natural medicines.. again because people listen to the testimonials that they want to here and all the people who get worse (with no oversight) simply are no talked about since their example does not help the people pushing their snake oil.

When was the last time you saw a natural medicine method talk about how things can go horribly wrong? Drug companies are required to warn you... natural ones can conviently leave out that information if they even bothered gathering it in the first place.

Joie said...

i say the young man is old enough to make his own choice. he is the one that has to go through the ordeal. has anyone asked him what he wishes? i have a strong feeling the answer to that is no.
also, i always feel it is wrong for the government to force any kind of medical treatment. it is NOT their place to do so, and they being grossly invasive.
and if the parents are keeping him form the treatment he wishes, shame on them and they will meet their judgement when their time comes, and it always comes around...no one gets to skip out on that.
once again though...what is the choice of the young man? anyone know? i didn't think so!!!!!

JMK said...

Thanks for the link Dr. Pablo, I'll check it out ASAP.

JMK said...

That's an interesting story about billy Best WFT.

Personally, I feel EVERYONE should be able to make their own treatment decisions for themselves.

JMK said...

"I find what the government is doing appalling. What is worse is that nearly 80% of society who voted on this issue is on the side of taking away the rights of the parents (and for that matter, the child's as well)." (Vilmar)
<
<
There are two competing interests here Vilmar, the State's concern over what some perceive as child neglect, versus the right of free people, as parents to raise their children as they see fit and to seek whatever treatment options they feel are in their child's best interests.

While I support policies against child abuse and neglect, I give parents a very wide latitude on how they raise, educate and care for their children.

It's ironic that many of the same people who were more than happy to let the estranged husband of a comatose woman, currently involved in a bigamist relationship, make the decision to pull the pulg on Terri Schiavo, now support the government taking away the family's natural right to seek whatever treatment options they choose.

An interesting dichotomy for the often misnamed "pro-choice" crowd.

JMK said...

I don't doubt that conventional medical treatments have a very strong track record anonymous.

The primary issue for me is parental rights.

Does a free American have the right to raise (ie. inculcate a specific belief system), educate (ie. home school) and care for (ie. seek alternative treatment options), or not?

The only answer, with respect for individual Liberty would be YES, they do have those rights, whether the government or the community at large likes those free decisions, or not.

If the government can impose "only accepted treatments on us," why can't it also impose "only accepted religions," or "only accepted beliefs" on us, as well?

Ultimately, I think individual Liberty trumps almost everything else.

JMK said...

"The problem with 'natural' cures is they tend to make great anecdotal stories but fails under rigerous testing." (Nathan Weyer)
<
<
Yes, I'll agree that that is all too often the case, Nathan.

But the question here seems to revolve around parental rights.

Does a subservient/serville government have the right to impose beliefs and treatments on its citizen masters?

Does a butler have the right to impose his beliefs on the wealthy family he works for?

I personally believe the answer would be NO, in either case.

Freedom of choice means that people are FREE to make their own choices. Some fo those choices will be good, and others will be bad, sometimes disastrous.

A government that seeks to "save us from ourselves," really seeks to assert the control of ownership over us.

For me, the State's violation of a free individual's freedom of choice is the primary issue here.

The government overstepping its bounds here greatly worries me.

JMK said...

Many would disagree with you Joie, over a fourteen y/o's being "old enough to know what he wants," since we don't allow fourteen year-olds to enter into contracts.

But I DO agree that free choice, free will IS the preeminent issue here.

The child went through one treatment ad didn't want to go back.

His parents sought out alternative treatments.

That seems to be the actions of caring, concerned parents, NOT criminally negligent ones.

I do have a HUGE problem with government's asserted role in this case.

WomanHonorThyself said...

It's ironic that many of the same people who were more than happy to let the estranged husband of a comatose woman, currently involved in a bigamist relationship, make the decision to pull the pulg on Terri Schiavo, now support the government taking away the family's natural right to seek whatever treatment options they choose...that says it all my friend!..excellent piece..and heart wrenching as well.

Dan O. said...

Someone needs to learn the definition of freedom.

These parents didn't lock their child up and starve him. They, and it sounds like he himself also, decided not to follow one recommended treatment for another. Sounds like freedom of choice.

Just because someone chooses different from what you would, doesn't make them wrong or legally negligent.

If a treatment YOU decided to go with worked for you, great. But, that doesn't mean everyone has to choose that treatment. There's no guarantee that it will work for any individual.

Your life, your choice. Someone else's life, THEIR choice. NOT yours. NOT the government's. Stay out of it.

Seane-Anna said...

These types of cases are so heart wrenching. I choose to believe that everyone involved really does want what's best for Daniel; they just have very different definitions of what "best" means.

Still, I do recognize the heavy hand of the state and establishment medicine, here. Daniel's parents are being accused of medical neglect for not getting chemotherapy for their son. But what if they did get it and Daniel died anyway? Would they still be considered neglectful? No. The state and the medical establishment only accuse parents of "neglect" when they reject establishment medicine. Forget how many people EM fails to save, or even kills outright.

My father, who died of abdominal cancer, was misdiagnosed for SIX MONTHS. My mom, who is thankfully surviving breast cancer, was also misdiagnosed. Establishment medicine is in desperate need of a BIG dose of humility. It screws up BIG TIME and people like my Dad pay the price. So, in the end, I think EM and the state should back off the Hausers and let them seek the treatment for Daniel that THEY think is best. After all, that is the parents' job, not the government's.

JMK said...

Thanks Angel!

It is a thorny issue.

On the one hand government is arguing FOR more control over individual's lives in the name of "knowing what's best" and "caring about ALL its citizens," while on the other hand, THIS government was forged as a SERVANT TO the people, SUBSERVIENT TO the individual.

LIBERTY/freedom means that people must be free to make poor decisions, mistakes and to fail.

A government that seeks to save ALL citizens from failure, winds up keeping individuals from succeeding, as well.

JMK said...

"Just because someone chooses different from what you would, doesn't make them wrong or legally negligent....Your life, your choice. Someone else's life, THEIR choice. NOT yours. NOT the government's." (Dan O)
<
<
That's about as good a way ti define freedom/individualism as any, Dan O.

Freedom isn't often neat, polite, or orderly. It's often very messy, as it's the free-for-all of free human action.

People have a right to take risks, to look for other options and new ways of doing things.

Some will work, others won't.

The INDIVIDUAL must ultimately ALWAYS bear that risk and a subservient government (as ours was founded as) must know its limitations.

JMK said...

"But what if they did get it and Daniel died anyway? Would they still be considered neglectful? No. The state and the medical establishment only accuse parents of "neglect" when they reject establishment medicine." (Seane-Anna)
<
<
Nor would the government or the doctors involved be charged with negligence if conventional treatments were used and Daniel died anyway.If the government now claims the non-existent "right" to "save us from ourselves," then it stands to reason that it MUST also GUARANTEE that "good outcome" as a signo of good faith and government's confidence in its own abilities.

That GUARANTEE doesn't exist, because that non-existent right" doesn't exist, that is, there's absolutely NO Constitutional basis for such a powerfor THIS government!

Z said...

I think this is as JMK describes; About whether the government can call the shots, not natural meds over standard chemo, etc..
Boy, the kid's only 13; can he really make a choice this important?
Under 18, and we don't let a child die for having murdered someone else, right?
Maybe we shouldn't let him die because he makes a choice that doesn't work for him healthwise?

ON the other hand.....individual liberty should trump all other things, I suppose. Ya, I think so.

JMK said...

"Boy, the kid's only 13; can he really make a choice this important?"Under 18, and we don't let a child die for having murdered someone else, right?"Maybe we shouldn't let him die because he makes a choice that doesn't work for him healthwise?" (Z)
<
<
That's the dilemma this case presents - Liberty versus government accepted care.

Without question, Daniel is too young to even enter into a contract on his own.

However, he did not want to continue Chemo and his mother sided with him and sought out alternative therapies.

Are government accepted or "traditional medical practices" now MANDATORY and enforcable by government fiat?

If they are, then the government can force anything, any belief system, any burden, anything that government officials declare "government approved and sanctioned".

That seems at odds with our cherished Constitution that clearly allows individuals to make bad choices, to fail....even to die on their own terms.

Clifton B said...

Actually I was thinking along the lines of Joie. Since many believe that it is OK for a girl Daniel's age to decide on her own to have an abortion, why can't Daniel decide whether or not to skip chemo?

I have a problem with government injecting itself into family issues and ordering outcomes. Yes, SOME parents make bad choices, but should ALL of us be subjected to rules because of it?

JMK said...

"Actually I was thinking along the lines of Joie. Since many believe that it is OK for a girl Daniel's age to decide on her own to have an abortion, why can't Daniel decide whether or not to skip chemo?" (Clifton B)
<
<
That's very true CB.

Somehow, the government allows under-aged children to make their own decisions about abortion, without parental consent. In THIS case, a child wishes to opt out of a traditional medical procedure WITH parental consent and the government wants to make that a felony for the parents.
<
<
"I have a problem with government injecting itself into family issues and ordering outcomes." (Clifton B)
<
<
That's exactly right. Freedom is messy. Free people often make poor, even disastrous decisions or choices, as is their right.

Historically, I can't think of an institution that's made more disastrous decisions than the Centralized State, whether your talking about Stalin's, Hitler's, Mao's or any other Centralized State.....they've made some of the most glaring and horrific "bad choices" in human history!

Individuals couldn't possibly top that record of gross incompetence.

Skunkfeathers said...

JMK, I've read your rebuttals to a liberal I'll leave unnamed at another blog. 'Nuff said there.

May I say that you are well-informed, articulate, and a damn sight better at rational debate than I sometimes become with someone I consider uncredible.

Kudos, sir! And you're book marked for further visits; appears to be a great site for education and current events.

Seane-Anna said...

I second Skunky's thoughts, dude!

Thanks for the patience you've shown to what's-her-name over at my blog. You've taught me a lesson, JMK, although whether I'll be able to apply it to you-know-who is iffy. Still, I appreciate your support and am glad you decided to join the fray. I've never had a post generate 54 comments before!

biggirlpants said...

great post, jmk - i've been following this story with great interest and am amazed at the decisions of the judge. disgusted is more like it.

elwoodin said...

Just another example of the many freedoms that we are losing here in the US, and we are allowing it to the point where, now parents are getting arrested for wanting to try something different to cure their son. People, I have been saying this for a long time now. If we do not stand up to the government and soon, our freedom to do so will be GONE.

Great post JMK

Skunkfeathers said...

The first step to standing up to the government is writing to our elected officials in droves, letting them know that we, the people and the voters, are NOT impressed with the direction this is taking. I know this takes time, and lots of folks trying to live their lives don't think they have that kind of time. That kind of thought process gives us the kind of politics we are getting.

The second step: at the voting booth.

That's where we collectively (not individually; folks like JMK here sounds like he walks in fully informed) seem to fall short, election after election.

It's rapidly getting where the luxury not to care is a luxury reasoned, common-sense Americans can ill-afford to take for granted on Election Day.

JMK said...

After that individual claimed that she didn't think Olbermann, Gore, Soros etc., were "far-Left", I've recognized that further discussion there is probably pointless.

You folks didn't do bad at all.

You responded to someone who attacked you with emotion, and you did attempt to try and give her rational reasons for your views.

I came into that later and because of that, maybe I looked a little more diplomatic....but you can't be diplomatic....or even reasonable with "emotional thinkers".

Some of the far-Lef are feling their oats right now.

What they don't undertnd, and at their own peril, is that Liberalism isn't any more or less popular than it was before, it's just that the MSM convinced most of America that (1) G W Bish was an evil Conservative and (2) Conservatism, the free market and deregulation ruined the economy.

In FACT G W Bush was as Keynesian as his Dad was and it's Keynesianism that has ruined the economy....and we're now getting MORE Keynesianism.

Sadly, it's going o have to fail, before Conservatives can make any inroads.

I DO try to convince as many people as I can, but so far as I know, my efforts haven't really accomplished much, on that score.

Apparently either I'm not convincing enough, no an effective enough of a communicator, or most Leftists are wed to that ideology the way that they are to religion, ethnicity, etc.

I'm fortunate in that I don't expect much. That is, I don't expect to convince or convert many people...so I'm rarely disappointed when that doesn't happen.

JMK said...

P.S. THANKS for the kind words and for stopping by....I'll look you up as well.

JMK said...

That's an interesting discussion Seane-Anna....and it IS interesting to see how differently Liberals and Conservatives define the same terms.

That's almost certainly the reason we talk past or at each other so often.

My only disagreement with you in the past has been that you often wear your heart on your sleeve, and that coupled wih your feistiness can come across as "threatening" to some on the Left.

I DON'T care about their feelings at all, what I care about is Conservative not going over-the-top and eroding their own credibility by making EVERYTHING Dems do, out to be a "disaster".

Besides, they are sewing the seeds of their own destruction....people expect them to "fix it", by which they mean return us to our previous prosperity with little pain....since the current problems are borne of Keynesian policies, MORE Keynesian policies aren't going to help, they're going to be a disaster.

In my viw, why come off angry or threatening?

Threats are warnings and I don't feel the need to warn such nefarious people at all.

JMK said...

BGP, I feel much the same way.

People have a right to make poor choices and mistakes....they have the riht to choose other options, when they see fit.

What bothers me about all this is the over-reaching by a government increasingly alligned wih Big-Pharma, which is ultimately seeking to make vitamins and other supplements - by presciption only.

What I don't get is "Pro-CHOICE" people opposing choice in such instances.

JMK said...

I agree Elwoodin.

The Tea Parties were a start.

It's ultimately going o take something major...a "triggering event" to rally people back toward LIBERTY.

That's somewhat understandable, since LIBERTY and INDIVIDUALISM are hard choices....it's expecting nothing from anyone else, and most of us have become accustomed to other people paying for our so-called "free stuff."

JMK said...

"It's rapidly getting where the luxury not to care is a luxury reasoned, common-sense Americans can ill-afford to take for granted on Election Day." (SF)
<
<
I sometimes fear it's worse than that SF.

With groups like ACORN illegitimately registering people to vote and taking people o the polls, we are very close to having institutionalized "rigged elections".

IF that ever turns out o be provably true, that would jusify a second American Revolution....NOT with Tea Parties but with serious and widespread bloodshed.

IF such a challenge ever came to pass, it would be good for those who cherish individualism and Liberty to remember hat only 12% of he American Colonists supported the American Revolution at that time.

Bullies, especially big-government ones, generally don't want to fight.

We'll see.

As things worsen because of this administration's Keynesian policies, we'll get a good idea of how honest our elections remain....probably by 2010.

It bears watching.

Seane-Anna said...

Hey JMK! You're right, further discussion with you-know-who, whom I've taken the liberty of rechristening Bonehead, is pointless. However, I did lob a couple of more shells her way after she had the nerve to tell me to stay out of the discussin she's having with you.

Isn't that just like a typical liberal? Trying to tell me what I can do with/on my own (intellectual) property. The nerve of that twit!

Oh, and the comments have reached 64 and counting!

JMK said...

That's a great comments thread.

I'm glad your blog is attracting such attention. You write well and work hard.

I still believe it's always constructive to try and engage those we disagree with and try o find some common ground....that's not always easy, especially since both sides define the SAME terms in very different ways.

Your post is largely right in that it was Liberals (those of the far-Left) who spit on Vietnam Vets, assail our Military and root against America at every turn.

I tried to explain that the far-Left (the Moore-Gore-Soros-MSNBC Axis) has become the face of the modern American Left and she feels that only Moore could possibly be called "extreme" or far-Left.

That's certainly an opinion, but it leaves us at impasse with no real hope of finding any common ground.

Seane-Anna said...

Thanks again, JMK, for your kind, supportive words. Your blog, and YOU, are treats,as well!

And you're right, "impasse" is the word for dealing with Bonehead. I've had it up to here with her, and while I've enjoyed all the excitement "debating" with her has stirred, I'd be happy if she never showed up on my blog again. Well, at least not for a while.

Thanks for contributing to the rather wild discussion Bonehead's liberal stupidity inspired. And thanks for trying to reason with her; like I said, that makes you a SAINT!

PS

I will correct one thing: I DON'T mean far-left when I use the word "liberal", as you suggested to Bonehead. I mean liberal.

I use the words liberal, left, far-left, progressive, and secular progressive interchangeably because, to me, they all describe the SAME basic belief system. If there is any difference at all between them, it's a difference of degree, not kind.

Over-the-top words and deeds, like spitting on our vets and rooting for our enemies, are said and done almost exclusively by the "far-left". However, I believe that the SENTIMENTS behind those words and deeds are shared by EVERYONE left of center. Again, the difference is only in degree.

JMK, I know you will chastise me for indicting an entire political group of people. Maybe you can convince me I'm wrong. I doubt it, but it's worth a try. After all, I'm not Bonehead; I will actually listen.

JMK said...

"I will correct one thing: I DON'T mean far-left when I use the word "liberal", as you suggested to Bonehead. I mean liberal....I know you will chastise me for indicting an entire political group of people. Maybe you can convince me I'm wrong. I doubt it, but it's worth a try. After all, I'm not Bonehead; I will actually listen." (Seane-Anna)
<
<
I wouldn't try to convince you that our wrong Seane-Anna....in fact, it (ideology) IS "a matter of degre", as you note.

I tend to separate more moderate, open-minded Liberals from the more extreme "far-Left".

Beyond that, the majority of Americans are relatively apolitical and most consider themselves "moderates" or "independents".

The reason I try to avoid insults and ad hominem attacks is because I see the NEED to convince, or at least make our best possible case to those in that vast middle.

I initially tried to give your guest the benefit of the doubt, but couldn't once she said that she didn't see many obviously far-Left people as the extremists they obviously are.

My hope (and faith) is that once Keynesianism fails (and it will) most of hose in the middle will abandon the Liberal Keynesian view, in favor of the far more effective and workable Supply Side view.

I have faith that in the end, circumstances will make our case for Conservatism, so even though I may not be able to convince many people, life's circumstances may do precisely that.

My hope is that in the interim, people don't come to embrace dependancy.

Seane-Anna said...

Again, JMK, you are so kind. I don't mind you trying to convince me I'm wrong. Even if I don't change my mind I might at least come to better understand your point of view. That's what civil discourse is all about, which is something liberals will never understand.

Putting Bonehead aside for the moment, I think the major difference between me and you is that you have faith in the goodwill of liberals and I don't.

JMK, you seem to think the problem boils down exclusively to economics. Let Keynesianism fail, you think, and apolitical middle America will have an epiphany and see the truth of conservatism. It won't, because there's more going on here than just economics. Remember, JMK, the American people voted FDR into office FOUR times, even though his socialistic--Keynesian?--economic policies did little to alleviate the Depression. I can see the same thing happening with Obama.

The problem is that middle America isn't as apolitical or nonideological as you like to think, JMK. While most in middle America may PERSONALLY adhere to traditionalist values, they are NOT necessarily committed to traditionalism remaining the CULTURAL norm.

The sad fact is that progressives have done a spectacular job of proseltyzing their ideology via all available outlets, especially the arts and entertainment. The result is that many Americans, even traditionalist ones, have absorbed many progressive attitudes and have no real problem with the demise of conservatism in society as a whole. That's exactly what the liberals want.

We conservatives, on the other hand, have done a piss poor job not only in countering the progressives' attacks but also in vigorously promoting and defending our values via the same outlets progressives use. All too often, we have thought that just winning elections was all that was necessary to win the culture, the hearts and minds of the American people. It wasn't, and now we're paying the price.

JMK, this is why I adamantly disagree with your passive, let's-just-wait-for-Keynesianism-to-fail attitude. Too much can happen AGAINST conservativism while we're waiting for the magic failure. And Obama can get reelected just like FDR.

JMK, I know you don't want to accept this, but we conservatives are NOT having a respectful disagreement with people of goodwill. We are in a WAR with people who HATE us and want to DESTROY us. And the only way we're going to win this thing is if we start fighting progressives the way they've been fighting us for decades.

One thing I'd really love to see is for conservatives to get back into the entertainment industry full force, producing GREAT music, movies, novels, video games, etc., that "sell" our beliefs in the "sneaky" way progressives have so successfully used to transmit their views into the hearts and minds of Americans.

Anyway, I've rambled here long enough. This is my opinion. I know you disagree JMK but, since you are a conservative, we can have a respectful disagreement. But we can't have that with the left, JMK, we really can't. Sigh.

JMK said...

"I think the major difference between me and you is that you have faith in the goodwill of liberals and I don't." (SA)
<
<
<
Not really. I separate the far-Left from more moderate Liberals and you apparently don't.

Moreover, I look at the bigger picture. There are appx 15% of Americans who self-identify as Liberals and appx 25% of Americans who self-identify as Conservatives.

That leaves a VAST middle of 60% of Americans who are (1) apolitical, (2) entirely self-motivated, that is "I support whatever's best for ME" and (3) while generally more traditional in their views than not, they are suspicious of ALL politics.

THOSE are the people who Conservative have to reach. They are turned off by personal attacks and they get most if not all their information from the MSM that tends to support the far-Left.

That creates a real challenging problem for Conservatives.

You don't seem to recognize that fact, but 2006 and 2008 seem to bear that out.

Over the past five years, the Left have done a better job of attracting more of that vast apolitical middle. If Conservatives don't reverse that, they're doomed.

JMK said...

"All too often, we have thought that just winning elections was all that was necessary to win the culture, the hearts and minds of the American people. It wasn't, and now we're paying the price." (SA)
<
<
<
That's NOT what we're paying the price for.

We're paying the price of accepting G W Bush's, Tom DeLay's and Dennis Hastert's, among other Republicans, abandoning of Newt Gingrich's and Ronald Reagan's mantle of SMALLER GOVERNMENT, lower taxes and LESS intervention.

G W Bush signed onto one of the most expensive and far-reaching pieces of business regulation (Sarbannes-Oxley) in history and though he cut taxes, he did so to INCREASE tax revenues (which those cuts DID) and then used those revenues NOT to pay down the DEBT, but to spend more. He spent MORE (even adj for inflation on reckless social spending) than even LBJ did.

Conservatives who still claim that "even a Rockefeller-wing Republican (a McCain or a Bush or a Dole, etc) is better than any Democrat....are not only wrong, they erode support for real Conservative principles.

Our problem wasn't "a focus on merely winning elections", it was on supporting Keynesian Republicans and allowing the Rockefeller/"Moderate" wing of the GOP to set and pollute the Republican agenda.

JMK said...

"JMK, this is why I adamantly disagree with your passive, let's-just-wait-for-Keynesianism-to-fail attitude." (SA)
<
<
<
I never said that Conservatives can "do nothing until Keynesianism fails".

What I said is that there's NOTHING POLITICALLY that we CAN DO, with the Democrats in control of the WH, the House of Representatives and with nearly a 60 vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

The Democrats, currently run by their Left-wing have every right (via the past two elections) and what's more EVERY INTENTION of forcing their agenda through.

The people have ALREADY SPOKEN! For better, or for worse, a sound majority of Americans SUPPORT their having that chance...to take THEIR SHOT at "fixing things".

I've said that it's ironic that Conservatism was tarred by the actions of Keynesian (LIBERAL) Republicans like the Bush's, the DeLay's and the Hastert's....who while uttering a few "socially Conservative cliches" governed as ineptly, wastefully and corruptly as any Liberal Democrat.

STILL, that is what Conservatism faces right now. It's been slimed by its own biased support of GW Bush, Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert, who ALL abandoned Gingrich's and Reagan's policies!

So, now we're faced with complete Liberal control of our government.

I say, so be it.....because there's NOTHING else TO SAY, since the Electorate has already spoken.

So, YES, Keynesianism MUST be allowed to be enacted and to FAIL, before ANY of that vast middle switches back to the Supply Side point of view. Without a majority of that vast 60% middle, neither side can win an election.

Commentators, Bloggers and Talk radio are NOT going to stop the Liberal control of government....which is LOCKED IN until at least 2010.

All that angry and over-the-top Conservatives CAN DO, in the interim, is to marginalize Conservatism and those who support even more.

Conservatives HAVE TO BE smarter than their opponents. We don't have the luxury of a supportive MSM and entertainment industry.

Those who don't see that and don't accept that as reality, are really no friends to Conservatism.

JMK said...

"I know you don't want to accept this, but we conservatives are NOT having a respectful disagreement with people of goodwill. We are in a WAR with people who HATE us and want to DESTROY us." (SA)
<
<
<
That's ONLY true of the far-Left, appx 3% to 5% of Americans who root against America and revile Capitalism as "unfair".

That is NOT even close to true for even the majority of commited LIBERALS, who merely see a greater roll for government, a greater need for more social progrmas, universal medical coverage at taxpayer expense, etc.

While I vehemently disagree with even Moderate Liberals, I don't hate them, nor do they "hate America" and they are NOT alligned in any real way with the far-Left - the Moore-Gore-Soros-MSNBC axis.

It's both foolish and short-sighted to lump all people who disagree with Conservatives and don't care for the recent Republican rule with the far-left.

The far-left (that 3% to 5% of radicals) who revile America's "unfair market-based economy" and see America as "an Imperial power and a force for ill around the world" ARE "enemies within", NONE of the rest of the vast majority of Americans who are skeptical of Conservatism, Conservatives and Republicans fall into that group.

I advise we don't push more people in that direction by responding in anger and frustration.

JMK said...

"One thing I'd really love to see is for conservatives to get back into the entertainment industry full force, producing GREAT music, movies, novels, video games, etc., that "sell" our beliefs in the "sneaky" way progressives have so successfully used to transmit their views into the hearts and minds of Americans." (SA)
<
<
<
As would I Seane-Anna, but where are the Conservatives who support Conservative artists like Mr Avilar, and other Conservative artists whom I've highlighted here on this blog?

Maybe it's true that "Conservatives don't dance", that is, they don't buy as many movie tickets, patronize the arts, etc., as much as Liberals do...perhaps that's the reason the Left dominates the arts and entertainment, just as why the Right dominates Talk Radio.

Another thing to remember is CONSERVATISM, like any belief in HUMAN LIBERTY and INDIVIDUALISM is that hard choice.Not asking anyone for anything and standing on your own two feet, accepting personal responsibility for ALL that happens to you is HARD.

Expecting others to help out, "because we're all in this together" and supporting free housing, free food, free clothing and free healthcare is EASY.

It's only natural that far more people want FREE STUFF than support everyone working for and paying for their own stuff.

There are too many naive Conservatives who don't realize that.

We're not selling something EASY or something that resonates naturally with most people, we, like America's Founders, are selling something that's very difficult to sell, a very hard choice that many, many people see as ultimately unfair, especially to those unable to compete.

WE'RE the ones in an "UPHILL BATTLE" Seane-Anna. The Left is selling a worldview in which it "rains rootbeer" and where "anything that feels good (even pedophilia) is fine." Free stuff and a LIBERTINE ("anything goes") morality is the EASY choice, the more tempting sounding path.

We're the ones selling the "no free lunch" viewpoint.

Right now, there are fewer takers of our view than there were in the past.

We have to be smarter both in how we formulate our arguments and how we approcah those who disagree.

I hope you come around to seeing things a little differently....I do not write and discuss things to CONVINCE or CONVERT, but merely to offer a different way of seeing things.

You mistakenly seem to believe that "the majority of Americans are on our side and strongly support freedom, property rights and individualism." In FACT, the vast majority of Americans hold no such political or ideological predilections. They'll support whatever they perceive as being in their own best interests.

WE are the ones who have the much more arduous and difficult case to make. We forget that at our own peril.

Seane-Anna said...

Hmmmmmm. It seems, my friend, that you and I are increasingly coming to an impasse of our own. You wrote a lot in response to my latest comment, JMK. I'll limit my response to your remarks that most caught my eye.

Yes, JMK, I DO recognize that conservatives have to reach middle America. I just don't think that middle America is as apolitical as you do. I also don't believe that middle America is turned off by personal attacks, as you do. If that were true where was middle America's outrage over the Left's viscious personal attacks against George Bush? Middle America has more liberal tendencies and sympathies than you're willing to admit.

JMK, you say we need to win over the "vast middle", but you don't offer any suggestions on how to do that. You admit that your rational, persuasive approach hasn't "converted" many people, but you object to my feistier tone. You say we conservatives have to be smarter than our opponents. How? Exactly what DO we do? Being polite isn't cutting it. Being cerebral also isn't cutting it.

JMK, you talk a lot about Keynesianism and how bad it is. Let me tell you, that doesn't reach anyone's heart, no matter how true your analysis is. That's what I was getting at when I said we conservatives put too much emphasis on winning elections. Winning elections doesn't mean winning hearts. For any belief system or worldview to not only survive but thrive, it must capture people's HEARTS, not just their heads. We conservatives lost sight of that long ago. And, yes, we're paying the price for it now.

JMK, I don't think you and I will ever agree on what course conservatives should take, or how much goodwill liberals have (none). Yes, we're at an impasse, but it's an impasse between friends. I'm not Bonehead and neither are you. At the end of the day we're on the same side and want what's best for our country. I wish I could say that about all Americans. Sigh.

JMK said...

"Exactly what DO we do? Being polite isn't cutting it. Being cerebral also isn't cutting it." (Seane-Anna)
<
<
You've got that exactly wrong, Seane-Anna.

The ONLY way to make an argument and win the battle of ideas is with better ideas and making reasonable ("polite") and intelligent ("cerebral") arguments.

HOW?

That's like sking "how do we breathe?"

I make them all the time.

Polls seem to show that while an over-the-top Glenn Beck may get better ratings, it's the Newt Gingrich's who drive the debates and move the ideas that influence far more people.

The theatrical, WWE approach is definitely NOT in Conservatism's best interests.

We have to win the reasonable and intelligent battle of ideas or we're doomed.

Your comments have sparked some thought on this issue and I may post a full post on the current Conservative dilemma.

American Ideas Click Here!