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!
Granted one can't have everything, but if Edwards were to throw a few knocks at free-trade pacts and the Taft-Hartley Act, I might well support him. I say this as someone who has never voted for an Elephant or a Donkey.
Posted by: D.T. Presler | March 26, 2007 at 12:47 PM
My daughter was diagnosed with breast cancer at age 25 and is a survivor, now age 31.
A while ago one of her work collegues objected to her needing to take the afternoon off for a check up, remarking that she was just taking advantage of her illness to put more work on other people.
Anyone who has had cancer would not be surprised by this kind of reaction.
Posted by: Hattie | March 26, 2007 at 04:08 PM
My mother had breast cancer when I was a young girl and hearing the news took me straight back to the tenor of the household when awaiting the results of periodic bone scans ... in a word, grim. But she's alive and cancer-free 25 years later .... which sadly will not be the case for Elizabeth Edwards.
It does make me wonder why one family has to undergo so much misfortune. I seriously considered writing a letter to the editor of my local paper urging people to vote for Edwards during the '04 campaign but was afraid that I'd be accused of exploiting their son's death to promote my political views. But I felt (and still do) that someone who lost a young son to tragic circumstances is infinitely more qualified to make life-or-death decisions about other people's children. In contrast there is Bush's hard-partying moon-faced daughter and her slack-jawed twin who works in some fashion house without an apparent care now that they don't have to doctor id's. Sorry to sound so catty but it really does just kill me to see the commander-in-chief's spoiled brats frolic while their peers who are Army cooks and Marine transport aides get blown to bits.
It makes me think of Edwards's Convention Address in which he remarked that life has taught him that heartache is unavoidable, that utopian ideals have no place in politics, but that that's no excuse not to dream and work for a better world. Sounds like maybe this is someone who knows of what he speaks.
Posted by: lc2 | March 26, 2007 at 05:34 PM
The Bush daughters have the right to enjoy privileges just because they are the daughters of a head of state. They are your social betters, not equals. They are the modern equivalent of princesses, except that their situation is temporary (their father is not a monarch), and meant to be that way (as opposed to being temporary only because, for instance, a king died relatively young or was deposed). While, presumably, being the daughters of a former president should still confer some kind of privilege, the fact is that their father is the head of state now. And of course, more distant relatives such as nieces deserve their own share of privilege. I can't believe one can actually be the child or relative of a head of state and be expected to act and be treated like ordinary people. That's the problem with democracy and equal opportunity. The notion of belonging to a privileged class of people based on one's ancestry or family background is no longer respected. The best political system would allow some degree of upward mobility for talented individuals while conferring to people born in the "right" families or who get certain jobs or ranks some kind of noble status that can be inherited.
Posted by: Monica | March 26, 2007 at 08:08 PM
Amen, Barbara! And I hope Elizabeth and John Edwards see your post.
Posted by: annie | March 26, 2007 at 10:10 PM
When I was doing my student teaching, my master teacher lost a child to bone cancer just two weeks after another was killed by a hit and run driver. She came back to work quickly, and worked the whole time her child was sick. She said she would have lost her mind without her job. I have never had an equivalent expereince, but I well remember that as early as I might get there, she was always there first.
Posted by: Maya's Granny | March 27, 2007 at 12:18 AM
Monica, you're apparently blind or ignorant of how feudal privilege actually operated. Under such systems, G.W. Bush would have been expected to follow his father's lead and, you know, risk his own ass in war instead of pull strings to get himself a domestic assignement he didn't even bother to turn up for. In theory, the "right" families didn't get where they were for nothing. Next you'll tell us it's ok for the Bush twins to smoke dope or use a fake ID to drink because rank has its privilege.
Posted by: D.T. Presler | March 27, 2007 at 12:39 PM
I'm unclear about the criticism. We all live with a death sentence. What is it about a more clearly defined prediction of one's death and its cause that is supposed to cause one to quit living and retire to the back room? What else is Elizabeth Edwards supposed to do if not keep living her life?
Posted by: Ron Davison | March 27, 2007 at 01:01 PM
I agree that JE is the candidate with the most well-thought out and prepared ideas and who seems to understand the 'class war from above.' On the other hand, I don't feel that clear on his position on trade issues, such as NAFTA, CAFTA and the like. Couric seems to have decided to become 'mean Oprah' in order to counter her 'soft news' credentials.
Posted by: Ray Watkins | March 27, 2007 at 05:50 PM
I remember when several of my friends learned they were HIV+. In those years, most were dying in 18 months so I marvelled at the way they kept going to school or remodeling their houses. I thought if something like that ever happened to me, I would roll up into a ball and wait to die.
When it did happen -- they found a lump in my mammogram -- I left the radiologist's office and continued on to the office supply store to buy the scanner I wanted. As I waited in line to pay, it suddenly hit me that I was continuing on just as they had, and it seemed the most logical thing to do. There wasn't the drama I felt for them when it happened to me, just their same journey to the next thing, and the next thing after that.
Luckily, it wasn't a lump per se, just remnants of an ancient cyst, but before I knew that and was calming my crying mother, I finally understood those guys, and what they had taught me.
Inertia is the property one has to overcome to begin, but the same property one must overcome to stop.
Posted by: theresa | March 27, 2007 at 06:15 PM
The "best candidate out there"? Doesn't experience count for anything? I'm a fellow cancer survivor too, but I would not vote for Edwards under any circumstances. He has not done anything to convince me that he is competent to govern the country. I'm backing Richardson--who has both experience and the right stance on the issues.
Posted by: Kahscho | March 27, 2007 at 07:10 PM
The Bush daughters should not even need an ID, or should only need one to prove that they really are the Bush daughters. And of course they should be allowed to consume whatever substances they want. It's sad that control over one's body is seen as a huge privilege even the president's daughers can't have. And the feudal system did not require women to go to war, and some males did not go either. While some people really had to do that job, the fact is that it was a system that coferred some degree of privilege and respectability just for being born in certain families, whereas now, privilege does not even extend to the ruler's own daughters. And it is said that women's liberation and the presence of some women in the army makes it normal to expect women to go to war, whereas in the past they had the right not to just because of their gender. The female children of a head of state should have the right to stay home and party while male averege Joes go to war.
Posted by: Monica | March 27, 2007 at 08:18 PM
Inspiring post! I hope to link it to Ameriblog's comments from post "Leave Elizabeth Alone."
Posted by: Tina | March 28, 2007 at 02:29 AM
Inspiring post! I hope to link it to Americablog's comments from post "Leave Elizabeth Alone."
Posted by: Tina | March 28, 2007 at 02:31 AM
John Edwards has not laid out his political and economic views on any topic. Vague hints. No concrete statements.
However, we know he believes in lawsuits to enrich himself. We know he could care less about outrageous and abusive energy consumption (he's building a 20,000 square foot house)
We know he will raise taxes. A lot. The idea of repealing the Bush tax cuts is a screen. To finance the healthcare program at which he's hinted, taxes must rise far higher.
Unless he plans to stop illegal aliens from entering the country, his healthcare plan would become a magnet for every pregnant woman in the world.
He's shown no understanding of foreign affairs either.
For what it's worth, during the 2004 campaign, he was known as the "Breck Girl" for his perfectly coiffed hair and good looks.
Meanwhile, Barbara claims he's "taking up the banner of the little guy".
What nonsense. His lawsuits have taken as much money as possible from "the little guy."
Posted by: chris | March 28, 2007 at 04:49 AM
You miss my point entirely Monica. Inherited privilege in medieval times wasn't supposed to be zero-sum. One was expected to risk even one's life when the occasion beckoned. Unlike Dubya, Prince Harry sure didn't need to be told to join the military and neither did his father.But then again, they don't enjoy much privilege other than a certain deference (under British law, the families of peers, even royals are as common as a busboy). Which is as it should be.
Posted by: D.T. Presler | March 28, 2007 at 08:04 AM
Just out of curiosity, chris . . . has Barbara ever said anything you agree with?
Posted by: Chris2 | March 28, 2007 at 06:23 PM
I just bought your book, Barbara, and I can't wait to read it.
Posted by: Joanna | March 28, 2007 at 07:24 PM
chris2, you asked:
"chris . . . has Barbara ever said anything you agree with?"
Yes. But I can't remember what it was.
Posted by: chris | March 28, 2007 at 07:34 PM
chris, I admire your ability not to let the facts get in the way of a rant.
If Monica were serious, she'd know that in a feudal society, the nobles led their armies; they did not stay at home.
Posted by: mythago | March 28, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Going on with life and trying to be as normal as possible is how I cope.
I guess after diagnosis and treatment you sort of develop a "new normal" but I try to keep it as close to the old one as possible.
It just so happens that Elizabeth Edwards ...normal is to run in a national campaign.
Once again a woman is being judged for how good a wife and mother she is. Only now it is not just her chocolate chip cookie recipe or how well she dresses that is being judged but how she decides to spend her precious time with the people she loves and the work she believes in.
My worry is that as Elizabeth
Edwards begins to look less than perfect there will be even more pot shots taken at her. That is when it is really going to hurt......
Gosh...I don't want to see them hurt any more..
Posted by: Jo Mackenzie | March 29, 2007 at 01:01 PM
But the vast majority of women and some men did stay at home (or somewhere else). Under such a system, the Bush daughters would have been exempted just because of their gender.
Posted by: Monica | March 29, 2007 at 01:05 PM
Heh. Reading Monica's posts (like this one: "The Bush daughters should not even need an ID, or should only need one to prove that they really are the Bush daughters. And of course they should be allowed to consume whatever substances they want." ...
I suspect her real name is Jenna.
Posted by: Linda | March 29, 2007 at 01:07 PM
These are wonderful people who remember where we"ve come from and where we need to go. We all will die,some sooner than others. Let's live life to the fullest and do good before we go "home"
Posted by: sherry | March 29, 2007 at 03:49 PM
The fact that there are so many people who think like Monica is what's really scary.
There are so many things I'd like to say to her but most of them would have to be spelled with asterisks and in the end she wouldn't get it anyway.
The "right" families indeed. I suppose you mean the richest, whitest families on the planet?
Well that's already the case. How much more oppression of others to benefit so few do you need?
Posted by: Deborah | March 29, 2007 at 06:35 PM
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).
Posted by: Monica | March 29, 2007 at 08:45 PM
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.
Posted by: Kevin Carson | March 29, 2007 at 10:55 PM
If Monica's joking she should know that sarcasm doesn't translate well in print unless you're a very good writer.
Posted by: Deborah | March 30, 2007 at 04:49 AM
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".
Posted by: Monica | March 30, 2007 at 07:54 AM
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?
Posted by: Dave | March 30, 2007 at 09:33 AM
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.
Posted by: Kyso K | March 30, 2007 at 06:33 PM
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.
Posted by: Monica | March 30, 2007 at 09:31 PM
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.
Posted by: slapshot | March 30, 2007 at 10:20 PM
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.
Posted by: Jonathan | March 30, 2007 at 11:27 PM
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.
Posted by: chris | March 31, 2007 at 09:00 AM
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.
Posted by: slapshot | March 31, 2007 at 08:40 PM
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).
Posted by: Miss Fitt | April 01, 2007 at 05:20 PM
very very nice informations...thank you very much. mr suma...
Posted by: evden eve nakliyat | April 02, 2007 at 10:21 AM
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.
Posted by: NVMojo | April 02, 2007 at 07:07 PM
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".
Posted by: JustMe | April 02, 2007 at 07:44 PM
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.
Posted by: slapshot | April 03, 2007 at 11:22 AM
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.
Posted by: JustMe | April 05, 2007 at 11:58 AM
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.
Posted by: Monica | April 05, 2007 at 02:01 PM
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.
Posted by: slapshot | April 06, 2007 at 02:10 PM
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.
Posted by: Monica | April 06, 2007 at 07:56 PM
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!
Posted by: Loretta | April 07, 2007 at 04:58 PM
very very nice informations...thank you very much. mr sumii
Posted by: evden eve nakliyat | April 24, 2007 at 06:42 AM
very very nice informations...thank you very much.mr blog
Posted by: evden eve nakliyat | April 24, 2007 at 06:43 AM
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.
Posted by: Jacqueline | July 22, 2007 at 12:37 AM
thanks
Posted by: sohbet | September 25, 2007 at 06:42 PM
really nice
Posted by: sohbet odasi | September 25, 2007 at 06:42 PM
veryy nice
Posted by: sohbet odalari | September 28, 2007 at 06:10 PM
thxx
Posted by: sohbet | September 28, 2007 at 06:10 PM
ook
Posted by: sohbet odalari | September 29, 2007 at 03:20 AM
your information is very interesting for me. and I want to say thanks for your information. maybe this information will be use for all us
Posted by: thelewdangel.com | January 28, 2010 at 04:32 AM