Catty About Cancer

Ever since John and Elizabeth Edwards revealed that her cancer is back and has taken up residence in her bones I’ve lived in fear of what Ann Coulter might have to say about this grim situation. It’s bad enough, for someone like me, who’s been treated for breast cancer, to hear about anyone else’s recurrence, but it’s worse when you’re worried about a recurrence of Coulter’s hoof-in-mouth disease, which led her to suggest, on March 2, that John Edwards is a “faggot.” Will she now charge that the Edwards are faking the whole thing – or that Elizabeth is actually a male transvestite, who will be using the alleged cancer as a cover-up for his sex-change operation?

It’s true, the Edwards’ joint announcement of their medical crisis does unfairly highlight the fact that the top three Democratic presidential candidates are all married to their first spouses, while the two top Republicans are serial marry-ers and Newt Gingrich has just paved the way for his own candidacy with a confession of adultery. I see no reason why a divorced person or an adulterer should not be president. But there should be a law against their ever invoking “family values.”

Strangely, it’s not Coulter, but girl-next-door Katie Couric who’s hinted, in a 60 Minutes interview with Elizabeth Edwards, that the couple might be “capitalizing” on the disease. Can’t you just see them cackling over the bone scans, eagerly calculating what the results would do for them in the polls? Convening their children for the good news that, although Daddy’s been almost eclipsed by Obama, Mommy has a potentially fatal disease?

Couric also told John Edwards that some people might judge him “callous” for campaigning through what might be his wife’s last months. Is Couric forgetting that she was working as a $7 million a year NBC anchor while her own husband was dying of colon cancer? And just in case we do get a Gingrich candidacy: Recall that he had his first wife served with divorce papers while she was in the hospital with cancer. In contrast, campaigning with your spouse, for as much time as she will be able to spend on the trail, seems downright romantic.

All right, I have a stake in all this. For my money, John Edwards is the best candidate out there. Clinton has Iraqi and American blood on her hands; Obama has yet to lay out clear economic alternatives; and, although they might once have been Republican moderates, McCain and Giuliani are shamelessly snuggling up to the Christianist Right. I like Edwards because he’s taken up the banner of the little guy and gal in America's grossly one-sided class war. He’s laid out a plan for universal health insurance; he wants to repeal Bush’s tax cuts for the rich; he shows up at workers’ picket lines.

I met him on a panel last fall, he is good-looking enough to merit Coulter’s suspicion that he can’t possibly be straight (though, really, Ann, if you want to crank up your “gay-dar,” you should get away from those pimply right-wingers and meet some new guys.) He’s modest, low-key, friendly, and, although he’s wealthy now, he spoke movingly from his family’s experience of poverty.

As for Elizabeth Edwards, all I know is this: When I was being subjected to chemotherapy six years ago, the one thing that kept me going was work. Every morning I would go down to my desk in the basement to confront the computer screen and the stacks of books and papers around it. I ended up not using the chapter – on ancient Roman games – I was writing at the time (for the book just published as Dancing in the Streets: A History of Collective Joy), but I desperately needed to be at least 2000 miles and 2000 years away from my affliction. So I say to Elizabeth, if I may call her that: Get out there, girl, and campaign like hell!

Comments

[Monica]

Maybe that's the case in reality. But it's just too bad that just having some remote family connection to privilege, even as remote as having an ancestor who participated in the Crusades or was some king's friend, mistress, or whatever, no longer provides any special entitlement and extra opportunities. Even being white used to be an advantage compared to others who were not. You see, modern opportunities such as employment or business ownership existed for a long time, even before they became the normal way of life and their number and social respectability increased. But wouldn't it feel nice if one could claim some rights or a more respectable status just because he found out that his ancestors were French nobles or something a few centuries ago? What about getting noble titles even now for being a judge or an important civil servant, or for buying the land on which some title was based? Things like that used to be done in Europe. It's just that now, this kind of opportunity is no longer available and it was never really available in the States. In the land of opportunity, opportunity is short-lived and certainly not something to be inherited through the centuries, or at least not as a birthright (as opposed to actually being privileged because of things like old money and Old Boys' clubs). Oh, by the way, the Bush family is related to the house of Windsor and to Dracula (the real person, not the fictional character).

[Kevin Carson]

D.T. Presler, Deborah, et al: I think you're being had. "Monica" is pulling your leg. Bush might have actually said something like that in one of his classes at Yale, but I doubt even he's that stupid.

[Deborah]

If Monica's joking she should know that sarcasm doesn't translate well in print unless you're a very good writer.

[Monica]

For his ancestry, enter in Google "Bush" Dracula" "Windsor" and you'll find articles like "Evil Seed: Bush and Kerry are Related to Dracula (Vlad the Impaler)". And that was not sarcasm. It's nice if opportunity is available, but being someone just because some ancestors were nobles or royalty provides a sense of worth, and it's the kind of worth nobody can take away from you. One can lose wealth, jobs, freedom, a spouse and in some circumstances (such as being a naturalized citizen) even citizenship. One cannot lose the fact that his or her ancestors were who they were. It's like: "OK, you can put me in jail, but you cannot erase the fact that my great-great-great-grandmother was a king's mistress and I therefore I have a dash of noble blood".

[Dave]

Two questions:
a) Does Monica know that using the Enter key will create paragraphs, and
b) Does she take a breath in the middle of the post?

[Kyso K]

For his ancestry, enter in Google "Bush" Dracula" "Windsor"

I can't believe it never occured to me to do this. It seems so obvious now.

[Monica]

I avoid creating paragraphs because, if there is a limit to the number of words or characters I can enter, it is not in my interest to have empty spaces. I don't even know what the limit, if any, is here. It's just that there are places where there is such a limit and I'm acting accordingly. And the reason I mentioned Google is that the article I mentioned can be found immediately by doing that search. I did not actually provide the link in case posting links is discouraged or messages with links are moderated which, again, is based on experience, because such things are done.

[slapshot]

Elizabeth Edwards has been living off of the fortune John Edwards made as a malpractice attorney. That is why I find her predicament a little ironic. His speciality was to wheel children who were crippled by cerebal palsey into court rooms to play on the heart strings of jurrors. It did not matter whether malpractice occured or not, the main thing was to pack the jury with housewives, unemployed slugs and liberals who would award huge settlements based on "outcomes". Why not? Just stick it to the insuance companies; and if a few doctors are ruined in the process, so what.

EE is now at the tender mercies of the same industry that she and her husband plundered. My guess is that the cost will come out of someone elses health care. The tens of millions that her hubby sucked out of the health care system can be reivested into her care and what is left over can fund their 20,000 sq. ft. mansion.

I do not wish EE any ill will but the microscope that she is under is not even one tenth what her scum spouse did to the medical professionals he ripped off when they were deposed and cross examined. The fact that she enriched herself with the money makes her no better.

Perhaps the breck girl can sue someone after he loses the election.

[Jonathan]

Obama's fight for the little guy has been going on a lot longer than Edward's, and he's put more of himself into it. But I think I have a lot more to see from all the candidates before I can decide here.

[chris]

slapshot,

Though I agree EE has enjoyed the benefits of her husband's plundering through the courts, I expect that her husband will write checks for her care rather than rely on insurance companies to cover the bills.

The Edwards' will want total control over every aspect of her treatment. That means they will not subordinate their desires to any restrictions imposed by insurance plans.

I'll bet they would willingly pay a premium over the standard rates of any doctor whose talents they sought.

[slapshot]

Chris,

You are right. They (The Edwards) now have money and they will spend any amount above what their insurance pays (He has great coverage as a Senator). All the doors will open for them as well because of who they are.

My point really is how they got their money in the first place. That came out of someone else's health care.

John and Elizabeth Edwards made their fortune off of the health care industry but did not contribute a thing. Worse, the money they drained out of the system either directly as an ambulance chaser or indirectly through defensive medicine, malpractice premiums, and legal fees made all the rest of us poorer.

[Miss Fitt]

http://www.amazon.com/Dressed-Kill-between-Breast-Cancer/dp/1930858051

What about this common-sense idea, that wearing bras could be a major cause of breast cancer?

With all the constant publicity about breast cancer, this idea is never mentioned. Why ignore such an obvious possibility?

I know, because fashion is so important to women they would rather die than look out of style. Even if the connection were proven by more studies, women would not burn their bras (or their high heels, or their hair dye).

[evden eve nakliyat]

very very nice informations...thank you very much. mr suma...

[NVMojo]

I'm with you, Barbara. These two people are humans with hearts and courage that we all can relate to.

I think of John Edwards as the Seabisquit candidate. The courage of the Edwards' team is something that gives the average person in America HOPE.

[JustMe]

To those that complain about how Edwards made his money I have a couple of questions. First, did he do anything illegal? Second, why is it you blame the attorney that is sueing on behalf of the victim and NOT the doctor that messed up? Perhaps you would not mind if a doctor removed the wrong kidney from YOUR child. Maybe it would be OK with you if a doctor left extra tools and sponges in your child which made the child very ill. Quite honestly, I do NOT believe that most Americans would find that to be "just fine".

[slapshot]

To JustMe:

"Outcomes" based lawsuits have nothing to do with malpractice and everything to do with milking a jury. The reason Edwards made so much money is that he made sure that he picked sympathetic "victims" of malpractice instead of real ones. Cerebral palsey is not like misdiagnosing a patient or "leaving a sponge" in a patient. The doctor can do everything perfectly and the child can still be effected. While I would agree with you that quacks should be dealt with I would also agree that ambulance chasers would evaporate if doctors had a jury of peers (other doctors). They would just laugh at the Breck Girl.

[JustMe]

In the news today...
http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/vet-claims-doctors-removed-wrong/20070404233709990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

That's right a veteran is claiming that a doctor removed the non-cancerous testicle instead of the one with the probable cancer. BUT HEY! Let doctor have a jury of his peers (other doctors that screw up) and this poor guy is just left to suffer. What a GREAT IDEA. Next you will say drug dealers should only have a jury of their peers ( other dealers and junkies). Remember JUDGES and JURIES award money not attorneys. If you think the amount was too much be upset with them.

[Monica]

There is a difference: being a doctor is legal, and a doctor is likely to be judged if he is accused of doing a bad job, not just because he is a doctor, and other doctors are in a better position than the general public to know how the accused doctor was supposed to do his job. On the other hand, being a drug dealer is illegal, and a drug dealer is judged because he is dealing drugs, not just because he is not meeting some standards of professionalism.

[slapshot]

Ok, a jury of peers really does not mean peers, it meens peers. You are right, that was a little silly. Every jury pool I have ever sat in is like a Pol Pot concentration camp. They take all the educated people, people with glasses, people with IQs above 90, and people with two dimes to rub together and dismiss them. What is left are the unemployed. The types that watch daytime TV. People who never get sued because they have no money! And better yet, they resent people with money such as doctors and insurance companies, and people with real jobs.

Which brings me to my point. According to the "deep pocket" theory of lawsuits, only people with money get sued. John Edwards and his wife never collected from the doctors. They collected from the insurance industry. And why not, they are just capitalist scum anyway (I mean the insurance types).

Next time you get your hospital bill and you resent paying for all the "unnessary" diagnostic procedures that your doctor ordered remember why they were done. Think about that when you pay your premium and complain. Yes if we had single payor I would pay it for you perhaps but I am not really interested in paying for someone else anyway. That's why I don't live in a collective.

The average OB/GYN probably pays what? $60 to 80,000 per year in malpractice insurance. Minimum. And half of that goes to fight off nuisance lawsuits and the ambulance chasers that only want to settle on the court house steps. You have to look up a lot of skirts before you break even not to mention payoff your college loans.

John Edwards for President? No thanks.

[Monica]

Winning a lawsuit is one of the few ways other than earning a good salary or business income that allows poor people to get out of poverty. Unlike "opportunities" like drug dealing, this is legal. Other examples of opportunities for the poor would be winning the lottery, lucrative careers in sports or entertainment or getting a richer husband.

Unless the system virtually guarantees access to a good income and improves the lot of the worse-off individuals, having rare and perhaps questionable opportunities to succeed is fair. It just provides extra opportunities in life and spreads around wealth.

[Loretta]

Barbara,

As a breast cancer survivor I've appreciated your voice on the issues of research and fundraising . . . and now on how the media has chosen to judge (a word I have purposefuly chosen) John and Elizabeth Edwards. It all seems so easy to those who put us in a corner, waiting to see if we make the right moves -- be it about our privacy, our healthcare, our lifestyle choices, and even what we choose to think about our future. Each of us chooses the best answers, given our circumstances. And we go on with a lot of hope and the encouragement of those who love us. How dare anyone ask more of the Edwards!

[evden eve nakliyat]

very very nice informations...thank you very much. mr sumii

[evden eve nakliyat]

very very nice informations...thank you very much.mr blog

[Jacqueline]

Regardless of what anyone's opinons on Edwards might be, there are a few inconvenient truths:

1. None of the other candidates, to the best of my knowledge, has actually laid out a concise plan for doing something to ameliorate America's growing poverty.

2.None of the other candidates even cared about delving into the daily issues that keep poor people poor. Has Hillary walked among urban ghettos, or semi-rural run-down trailer parks and asked the people what would make a difference in their lives for the better? No, she's too busy tooting her own horn and jumping on the pc anti-tobacco bandwagon that was bankrolled by corrupt big pharma and the elitist medical community who pushed their agenda with lies and fraudulent studies - oblivious to the fact that smoking bans have made the working poor even more stressed out and miserable in many cases.

3. Hillary is a sanctimonious know-it-all who came from privilege and knows just as much about what it means to be poor as George W. Bush!

4. John Edwards came from working class roots and regardless of how he made his pile, the fact is that he didn't forget where he came from.

5. Cancer is a horrific way to have to die. NOBODY deserves to have that! Nobody! My sister died of ovarian cancer at age 40. The stress of being poor because she was a poor uninsured waitress when she was stricken meant her quality of life was alot crappier than that of Elizabeth Edwards; however, Elizabeth Edwards' wealth cannot cure her because there is NO cure for cancer!

And you want to know why? I'll tell you why whether you like it or not:
Wealthy non-profits like the American Caner Society and the Robert Johnson Woods Foundation (wealthy non-profit arm of Johnson & Johnson pharmaceuticals) didn't spend hardly any of their largesse on research and finding a cure for cancer. If they were to do so, the high priced chemo abatement drugs would no longer have a market. That would be a big loss to Big Pharma - the hand that feeds them.

Instead, these organizations spent trillions of dollars on funding anti-tobacco campaigns and social engineering to de-normalize tobacco use and create an atmosphere of health fascism.

All this of course, aided big pharma's sales in pharmaceutical nicotine and nicotine replacement therapy drugs (like Zyban)plus boosted sales in anti-depressants to "help" all the ex-smokers cope.

Say what you want about Edwards being an "ambulance chaser", but you can never say he sullied his hands in the dirty money of the anti-tobacco movement which, contrary to mass misinformation, has not reduced heart attacks or cancer; rather it has increased misery for the 28 million smokers who have been made into second-class citizens in this country: fired from jobs for refusing to give up smoking (Scotts Miracle Gro & Weyco to name a few who give random nicotine tests), evicted from government housing, nursing homes and vereran homes, even denied life-saving surgery for conditions that had nothing whatsoever to do with status of tobacco use! And much of the tobacco lawsuit money from the Master Settlement Agreement was put into the coffers of wealthy lawyers who made their fortunes by jumping on the anti-smoker bandwagon and were paid far more for doing so by big pharma than Edwards ever made being a malpractice lawyer.

Taking cheap shots at Elizabeth Edwards,a dying woman, is the most despicable act of cowardice, moral bankruptcy and is the most debase and vile thing to do to a fellow human being. The Edwards family has my most sincerest and deepest sympathy. And John Edwards has my vote, and my husband's vote as well in 2008.

[sohbet]

thanks