I don’t have any personal anecdotes to explain why I support I-1000, the Death With Dignity Initiative. Unlike Geov, I’ve never been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Unlike Goldy and Michael, I’ve never been beside a loved one whose once vibrant life was replaced by something barely recognizable in the time before their passing. And unlike Jesse, I’ve never had a job that put me so close to death and dying.
But I-1000 is personal for me. It can be personal for anyone. End of life situations can be complicated – they can be heart wrenching. And they are always unpredictable. Even as a healthy person in his 30s, I know that if I’m ever at a point where my death my imminent, the biggest tragedy for me might not be the death itself – death is inevitable and mostly out of one’s own hands – but finding out that the government is limiting the options I have because it doesn’t trust me with the ability to make my own choices.
We talk a lot about liberty when we discuss politics. Regardless of one’s particular orientation, we all tend to think that we’re coming from the standpoint of maximizing our own liberty. But while many talk about their liberty, not everyone follows the famous advice from Thomas Paine:
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.
This truism extends to a number of our political debates today, as we often see politicians and partisans hold two completely opposing viewpoints on a subject depending on whether or not they or someone else is affected by it. When it comes to the opposition to I-1000, what many people see as government protecting their liberty is nothing more than a restriction on the liberty of others. What they desire is a system where government makes our choices for us because the decisions are difficult and potentially painful. This is the real slippery slope of I-1000.
I-1000 opponents will often come up with scary stories within a law like this. They imagine scenarios of being coerced into taking one’s own life or being overcome by the feelings of being a burden. These types of scenarios exist, but I-1000 does not create them, nor would it make them more common. I-1000 does not cause the insurance companies to do the wrong thing or a relative to lust after your inheritance. But I-1000 does prevent those people from dictating the choices you make at the end of your life. I-1000 ensures that the decision about how you die can be made by you, and no one else. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying about the law or does not understand it.
Many people desire a higher authority who protects them from themselves. I have no problem with such beliefs. But where I do have a problem is when the people work to make their own personal higher authority the higher authority for everyone. Government should exist to create systems that protect people from the things that we can’t control as individuals – the environment, natural disasters, unexpected health problems, the shifting winds and complexities of the economy. But government should not exist to tell us what decisions we make at an individual level that relate to our own moral compass – unless of course those decisions directly impact the public at large. The opponents of I-1000 are crossing that line – attempting to make choices that should be left up to individuals and their loved ones, without government interference and without having to submit to anyone else’s religious doctrines.
This is why I-1000 is personal for me. I’ve seen a growing desire in this country to have government take on the role of moral nanny in many ways. The end result of such a movement is undoubtedly a loss of liberty and a loss of our desire to be free adults, fully responsible for our own choices. This is why I feel compelled to speak up and this is why I’m working so hard to make sure I-1000 is passed – even though I’m far from being in a situation where the law would ever apply to me. As Thomas Paine knew, and as we still understand today, protecting liberty is not just about protecting your own freedom, but making sure that you live in a society where everyone’s is protected.
Please vote Yes on I-1000.
Criky, yet another pro I-1000 posting? Why is this horse so worth flogging? Do people really think this proposed legislation will effect as many people as say, poor education funding?
This is boring.
Then go somewhere else, Aaron. HA isn’t here for your entertainment.
Good editorial in the Times written by a life-long Democrat and probate attorney arguing against i-1000.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ped20.html
@1
Why is this horse so worth flogging?
Why don’t you read the post to find out?
@3
Already been torn to shreds here.
Bullshit. This blog is totally about political entertainment.
The attention paid here is not in proportion with the number of people likely affected, irrelevant anecdotes not withstanding. The only reason I can see for pushing I-1000 the way it is being pushed here is to pick a fight with the righties. Not a bad thing to do in my book, but this is a political red herring.
Thanks for playing.
How is it protecting my liberty to force me to go in front of a board to accomplish something I can do now with a private conversation with my doctor?
Not all procedures need to be spelled out.
Did you guys just delete Charlie Kee’s postings?
Totally chickenshit! I’m agast!
The comment at #8 by “Charlie Kee” was removed because it was a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the views of the author of this post. In particular, it made a claim that I said that I-1000 would prevent insurance companies from doing the wrong thing. That is clearly incorrect. If “Charlie Kee” wants to leave more comments, please ensure that the comments do not contain misrepresentations of the author’s viewpoint.
I have to be honest, I’ve been looking into both sides of the i-1000 issue, and I really don’t have an opinion on it one way or the other.
@8
Oh, and “Charlie Kee” has been given numerous warnings over the span of several years not to do what he just did.
Lee, you are full of shit. You can’t handle critique! Man, that is lame.
Going to delete me now because I say you can’t handle critique? So what if I mischaracterize your position! Don’t be such a goddam baby, and defend your self without censorship. Lightweight.
@ 5. Lee spews:
I encourage HA readers to go that thread. Lee’s idea of “torn to shreds” mainly deals with this by name calling, esp. vs, myself and Joel.
……………….
The reality here is that good people can disagree on this issue. When Lee puts his position forward, he is speaking as an activist, as libertarian, who believes that each individual should have as much freedom as possible. He even quotes Tom Paine who, after all, ended up being seen as too radical even by the Republican/Democrats. Of course in doing so, I assume Lee would not support Paine’s concepts of states rights(?).
On the other side from libertarians like Lee there are those who sincerely believe that society should err on the side of caring for its weakest, even if that restricts some freedoms ..as the social contract has always required. The other side also includes others who believe in natural laws, e.g. Jefferson, that can not be derived from first principles. “we hold these rights to be self evident …” For some of use this means that God has made a law, for others the law exists sui generis, dissing it all under “religion” used as an epithet is a form of bigotry that I find sad.
If I can leave this until later with one question, may I ask a favorite question?
@10
I’m not clear why this matters.
@6
This blog is totally about political entertainment.
Aaron, this blog is about political activism. This is an issue that several of us here feel very strongly about.
@7
How is it protecting my liberty to force me to go in front of a board to accomplish something I can do now with a private conversation with my doctor?
How is this related to I-1000 in any way? I-1000 does not require going in front of a “board”, and this is not something one can do just through a private conversation with a doctor.
I am the author of Charloie Kee and I resent Lee’s behavior.
@9
Lee
Read your own postings and have the simple honesty to follow HA’s rules.
@14
Of course in doing so, I assume Lee would not support Paine’s concepts of states rights(?).
The fact that you assume such things is why we all laugh at you.
WWJD? What Would Jefferson Do?
He would probably consider you a threat to his freedom as well.
No Lee, someone who deletes postings they don’t like, that’s a threat to freedom.
@16
No one cares.
@17
I have very specific rules when it comes to you. If you misrepresent my views, your comments are deleted. Period. If you don’t like it, complain to Goldy.
Clearly, I-1000 is more about political philosophy than practical medicine.
@19
I have done no such thing. I didn’t delete SJ’s post because I didn’t like it. I deleted it because it intentionally tried to misrepresent my views on I-1000. SJ has been warned about doing this going back over 2 years now (on various subjects) and he still continues to do it. I never delete posts because I “don’t like” them. I only delete posts when a person intentionally lies about what I’m saying.
Ok Lee ,,,
show us where the lies are?
BTW .. the “warning” you talk about was for YOUR blog. Not this one. If the policies of HA have changed in re free speech, we all need anew blog.
@14 “Lee’s idea of “torn to shreds” mainly deals with this by name calling, esp. vs, myself and Joel.”
Hmm, I don’t see Charlie posting in that thread.
@16 “I am the author of Charloie Kee”
Are you saying that Charlie Kee is another SeattleJew screen name? I hope not.
@23
This is the section that caused the comment to be deleted:
Leaving Lee’s penchant for dismissing others arguments as “lies,” he is just wrong here. Under I-1000 an insurance company STILL has the right to refuse to pay for palliative care (relief form pain and suffering).
I’ve never said otherwise. This is once again an intentional misrepresentation of my views in order to attempt to undermine my position. As has been explained to you repeatedly over the past two years, any time you do this to me, your comment will be deleted.
Got it?
I think after all these editorials about the infirm and sick you should change the name of the blog to HorsesCAST! ahahhahahahah
@23
BTW .. the “warning” you talk about was for YOUR blog. Not this one. If the policies of HA have changed in re free speech, we all need anew blog.
The warnings are valid for any blog I post at, and they are meant specifically to keep you from your continued attempts to intentionally distort my views online. They are similar to why we have laws in this country against slander, which I do feel are necessary in order to preserve liberty. In my four years of blogging, you are the only person I’ve ever had a problem with this about, and it’s been a problem close to a dozen times now. I have not spoken with Goldy about having you completely banned from the site, but the fact that I know he hates sock-puppetry as well might make it easier for me to make my case.
Adapted from the writings of “Charlie Kee” in an effort to take it down a notch:
@27 “I know he hates sock-puppetry as well”
Somebody level with me. Let me ask it this way, is SJ also Puddy as well as Charlie? I’ve wondered about the SJ-Puddy connection.
Thanks Aaron, that will be left up. It’s a strawman still, but it’s not a direct attempt to misrepresent me.
@29
No, Puddy is a real person (who I’ve met) and he’s a bit more intelligent about the world than SeattleJew.
From the article: (Lee)
Protect us from ourselves? What in the world do you mean? Do you not realize, that as a Republic, the law is supposed to protect us? That is the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. In the former, we are all amenable to the law. In the latter, law is subject to MAJORITY RULE.
This is precisely the problem, it is NOT THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT to do any of the things that you mentioned. In what governing document is it stated that this is the government’s responsibility??? It is the government’s responsibility to secure our God-given rights, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
This is a SOCIALIST attitude towards things.
So you don’t want government making “moral” decisions for you, but you want them protecting your health, the environment, fixing natural disasters, etc.??? Do you not see how inconsistent that is?
“I should be glad if you had really discovered a beneficent and inexhaustible being, calling itself the Government, which has bread for all mouths, balm for all sufferings, which can provide for all our wants, correct all our errors, repair all our faults, and exempt us henceforth from the necessity for foresight, prudence, judgment, sagacity, experience, order, economy, temperance, and activity.” – Frederic Bastiat, Essay on Government (1848)
So you don’t want government making “moral” decisions for you, but you want them protecting your health, the environment, fixing natural disasters, etc.??? Do you not see how inconsistent that is?
No I don’t. Because your health (in some cases, but not all), the environment, and natural disasters are all things that are outside the scope of individual control. Your moral compass is not. That’s why it’s not inconsistent at all. It just blows up your ridiculously oversimplified view that government shouldn’t do anything.
Not to mention that state and local governments have roles and responsibilities inherent in their own constitutions related to those duties. You seem to be forgetting that I-1000 is a state issue, not a federal one. In fact, the Supreme Court even agreed on that recently.
@33, Lee
“
You are either a liar, misrepresenting me, or you cannot read. I did not state that government “shouldn’t do anything”, I stated the PURPOSE of the government according to the Constitution. Take Federal or state, find where government does these things that you are saying they should. Go ahead, get to work!
You live in America and we have governing documents that describe our system of government and what it is supposed to do.
Socialism long existed and the authors of the Constitution knew of it, as well as democracies. That is precisely why they choose a Republic and not some nanny state system.
Lee said:
“
Lee, why is it that your health is outside of your individual control? Do you control what you put in your mouth? Your ability to exercise? Perhaps you can’t exercise because you can’t afford equipment or gym membership? If so, and since exercise is important to good health. Shouldn’t the government (we the people) subsidize either exercise equipment for everyone, or at least build government-sponsored gyms? At least this is consistent!
The point is, it is the INDIVIDUAL’s responsibility for his environment, his health, etc. Government’s cannot control nature and therefore cannot keep from having natural disasters. The state should take care of these things and not the federal government. WA state should not be responsible for paying for events that occur in LA or TX.
I haven’t forgotten that I-1000 is a statue issue, I was simply pointing out your socialist views.
“I should be glad if you had really discovered a beneficent and inexhaustible being, calling itself the Government, which has bread for all mouths, balm for all sufferings, which can provide for all our wants, correct all our errors, repair all our faults, and exempt us henceforth from the necessity for foresight, prudence, judgment, sagacity, experience, order, economy, temperance, and activity.” – Frederic Bastiat, Essay on Government (1848)
@34
You are either a liar, misrepresenting me, or you cannot read. I did not state that government “shouldn’t do anything”, I stated the PURPOSE of the government according to the Constitution. Take Federal or state, find where government does these things that you are saying they should. Go ahead, get to work!
Both the U.S. and our state constitutions allow for us to elect people to a legislature to make laws. There are a bunch of things in there that limit the scope of what those lawmakers can do with respect to our rights, but there aren’t any specified limitations on what they can do with respect to establishing agencies and systems that the people demand. People want their government to protect the environment and therefore the people in the legislature do that. There’s nothing in our state constitution that disallows this.
Socialism long existed and the authors of the Constitution knew of it, as well as democracies. That is precisely why they choose a Republic and not some nanny state system.
What I’m advocating is not socialism. What I’m advocating is a government that is empowered by the people to fix problems that affect them collectively. Socialism is when the government decides to fix the problems in a particular way (by banning private enterprise while addressing that problem). Many problems, like health care for one, can be fixed with smart government intervention that doesn’t require banning private enterprise.
Lee, why is it that your health is outside of your individual control?
As I mentioned, sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t. When a 7 year old gets leukemia, it is his fault? C’mon, man, you HAVE TO BE smarter than this.
The point is, it is the INDIVIDUAL’s responsibility for his environment, his health, etc.
To a limited degree. But individuals themselves can not deal with problems that have a national or global reach. The only way to deal with them is to have institutions with the same scope dealing with them.
WA state should not be responsible for paying for events that occur in LA or TX.
If we’re to be a strong nation, we need to understand that we’ll sometimes have to sacrifice to help out those in places where tragedies occur – knowing that one day the shoe may be on the other foot. That’s just common sense.
I haven’t forgotten that I-1000 is a statue issue, I was simply pointing out your socialist views.
You can call me a socialist all you want. You either don’t understand my views or you don’t understand what the word means. Actually, I’m betting on both here.
@35 Lee
Lee, are you saying that government involvement in the economy, whether it be bailouts, price controls, etc., is NOT socialism?
(And yes, we’ve had it under Bush 2)
@36
No, it’s just regulation. When the government runs the industries, that’s socialism. The takeover of Fannie May and Freddie Mac was socialism. Establishing limits on how much pollutants a company can put in the air, or overseeing the safety of airline manufacturers, that’s regulation.
Aaron ..
My thanks for yout post. Odd that Lee thinks it is OK as long as someone else posts it.
May I suggest that if you look through all the stuff he or I have posted, it is pretty one sided. Lee has called me names … ranging from obscene to deprecatory to my profession. He has made a variety of threats … including against my job etc.
Pretty bad stuff hunh? I even had a UW police officer call me in re one such exchange to see if I felt I needed protection! Really! I was impressed that somelone at the UDub was actually on the lookout for such cases but assured her that the this was all blog flames. In this case, ivolving the Muslim community, I did take on myself to have a productive talk with an Iman. Lee was invited but would only show up if I were tlo admit that I an anti-islamic bigot. Since Lee was lot there I can tell him the Iman and I had a very productive talk.
Let me make it perfectly clear, the animosity is one sided. I respect Lee for his intensity and .. on some issues, his expertise. If hewere not s uptight I would feel cmfortable asking his opinions on issues where I know he has more expertise than I do. For example, the impact of the drug war on african american children.
So, I am open to advice .. as is Charlie Kee.
I am sure my wife would rather I ignore Lee. She and I both enjoy DL and have had mutual friends pass on not so good things thehim has said.
So, perhaps I should ignore Lee?
That is not an unreasonable idea except that there is the issue of his own posts, some of which have been personaly provoactive. The term “liar” he used here is mild!
Another problem for me is that I really get angry when people post intruths about things I care about. For example, Lee’s current tirade began when I defended Joel Connely against some blatanty anti catholic reamraks Lee made. I will nlt try t quiote that here becasue anyone can search for it.
Simlarly, some of Lee’s arguements for medical marijuana have misrepresented the relevant science, an area that I take very seriously.
His misuse lof science to support his crusdade is no better than the misude by the other side to the opposite purpose.
BTW …
I am not sure what Lee means by sock puppet since he himselef posts under more than one “nom.”
I invented Charlie to make posts that would not be tied to my own name. I effed up by misusing it this time on a post I inteneded to be over the SJ signature.
Sorry if this confused Lee. And NO I am not as tall as Puddy and he has more muscles and more hair. We have both stayed at a Holiday Inn.
As for this topic,unlike Lee I have gone through terminal illness of dear ones and DO care a lot. I am also a “doc” and have some expertise that Lee lacks …or at the least that is different from his.
I-1000 is well meant, but is very flawed legislation for four reasons:
1.It increases government involvement in a situation where we have no reason to beleive MORE law is better.
2. It disrespects the moral obligations of caregivers.
3. It violates centuries of professional ethics governed by the Huppocratic oath.
4. It offers an incenttive to HMOs to encourage suicide,
I find these more than enough reason to comment.
In the meantime, assuming some here have a sense of humor .. or that Puddy is reading andI know HE has a sense of humor, I would like to end with a question:
So, I encourage thoughts about this and the more general issue of confrontations with Lee. ..perhaps you want to comment over at my blog or at DL since one can only assume that Lee will censor what he does not want to read here.
And Lee,the offer of peace is always open.
In the meantime, assuming some here have a sense of humor .. or that Puddy is reading andI know HE has a sense of humor, I would like to end with a question:
In the meantime, assuming some here have a sense of humor .. or that Puddy is reading andI know HE has a sense of humor, I would like to end with a question:
Lee said this?
I find it amazking how many religous people appropriete God or the Foundkng Fathers tomake there point! As someone lots older than others here (except for the rabbit) may I volunteer as good natured humor,
“Mr Thehim, I KNEW Tommy Jefferson and YOU SIR are nlot him!”
with apologies to Dan Quale
You’re saying that lee posts under different names?
What names would those be?
In message #16 seattle jew admits posting under another name. That’s a bozo no no, even an old man should be able to grasp that concept.
Delete all posts by sock puppets!
I guess when lee was allowing seattlejew to post under different names to insult me a while back seattlejew thought it was okay to use multiple names. For that, lee has to accept part of the blame.
Marvin …
1. Lee is in violation of the rules here.
2. There are no rules that I know of about use of false IDs, the rule I know of is impersonating others. BTW, aren’t you impersonating Marvin Stam?
@44
Marvin
Lee used the nom d’ web “thehim” in other places. As for here, I do not know if he posts as others although there are times I wonder about certain “noms” here.