In a forum that I frequently read, the discussion of the bloody murder of a model by her wealthy husband quickly disintegrated into a cruel mockery of her "blonde bimbo" image. To them, she was the epitome of a vapid, naive young woman who used artificially-enhanced looks to gain the affections of wealthy men. Their mockery of her reminds me of the public's and the media's treatment of Anna Nicole Smith, who also died tragically, with the aid of others who were supposed to be helping her. What they forget is that these two women, and others like them, were human beings both before and after their transformations who became caricatures of themselves in order to gain the attention of others. I guess, in a sense, they deserved the treatment...but even after their deaths? It's beyond tasteless--it's cruel.
What also disturbs me is that one member of the forum made a post using Chelsea Clinton as a euphemism for "ugly". Unsurprisingly, another forum member--who has made previous posts which suggest that he is a social conservative--thanked the first member's post for being "useful" (which is the forum's way of letting members show their appreciation for an informative post. Unsurprisingly, it's used often to indicate an agreement with the poster's sentiments, rather than the quality of their posts). Now, when the name of a former president's child is evoked as a substitute for the word "ugly", you know the quality of the discussion has deteriorated beyond recovery. The latest posts in that thread have little to do with the murder itself, which was its topic; it's turned into personal attacks and weak attempts to guide the discussion back to the original topic.
I have learned indirectly that Chelsea Clinton was once called the family dog by a nationally-recognized conservative Republican, whose similarly-minded audience at the time thought the comment was absolutely hysterical(-ly funny). Their ilk also called Hillary Clinton names that should make any woman righteously furious, simply because she did not fit their mold of the ideal woman (subservient and unambitious. A woman's dangerous when she's ambitious, doncha know.). In one of the more stunning demonstrations of their underhanded tactic of using personal attacks when they have nothing substantive or relevant to bring to the discussion, they attacked CHILDREN for being liars when they dared to support a Democratic candidate or a Democratic platform. The best (worst?) example of all is their calling President Obama's oldest daughter some of the same names they had used on Hillary Clinton simply because the 11-year-old dared to wear a shirt with a peace sign on it and to walk out in Europe with her hair unkempt (or so they thought). Little thought was actually given to the purpose of the Obama family's being in Europe in the first place...it was all about Malia's shirt and hair (and her skin color, but the name-callers claim they are not racists.).
Yet, when members of my party pointed out the misdeeds of the Bush twins or former AK Governor Palin's exploitation of her children to score political points, we become the target of "outrage" from conservative Republicans. How dare we criticize the Bush twins for using fake IDs to obtain alcohol and setting a poor example for their age peers. How dare we criticize Palin for a)constantly using her mentally disabled son as a prop to extol her "family values" while her record strongly indicates that she had turned her back on the mentally disabled children of other Alaskans; and b)seemingly being unaware of just how far her daughter had taken her relationship with her then-boyfriend while, again, extolling the family value of no sex before marriage. These people demonstrated their poor judgment by their actions, so we rightfully criticized them for failing to practice what they preach, but their defenders say we have no right to do so (because what? Because you are Republican, therefore beyond all reproach?). Who, then, gave them the right to make personal attacks on innocent members of my party and even children with no political affiliation for having the "misfortune" of looking the way they do by accident of birth (to Democratic parents--those immoral heathens) or the audacity to support an expansion of SCHIP because, I dunno, they are seriously ill and NEED health insurance to pay for their outrageously expensive medical treatments that their working/laid-off parents could not possibly afford? Why can't they just not get sick? If their parents KNEW they couldn't afford to pay for their children's medical treatments, why did they even HAVE children (they had to have anticipated that their children would get seriously ill before they were even born)?
Speaking of which, the cause of health care reform, which was the late Sen. Ted Kennedy's life's passion, has gained new momentum and meaning due to his recent death (may he rest in eternal peace). The cause is personal for so many millions of Americans, both conservative and liberal, and is the cause on which President Obama has essentially staked his reputation and success. Those who are eager to enforce the status quo are stoking the fears of those ill-informed reactionaries of the Republican Party, planting lies in their desperate-for-vindication-of-their-worldviews brains that socialism is an evil to be thwarted at all costs, that Obama's "death panels" (actually end-of-life counseling, which is essential) will "pull the plug on Grandma", that government-administered health insurance under Obama would cover illegal immigrants, and so on. All these arguments are absurd and untrue, and yet so many buy into them because they are so terrified of change that they will hold on to any embankment or rock in order to avoid being swept away by the steady flow of the stream of change. In those health care town halls that have captured the news media's attention these past few weeks, vocal groups (who have not read and will not read the actual proposal) opposed to health care reform have stifled debate, shouted down supporters and Democratic legislators, and even threatened their lives. From bringing dangerous assault rifles to "teabagger" rallies outside of town halls to hanging Democratic legislators in effigy, they have shown that there is no limit to the lengths they would go to prevent even the slightest change, even if it actually benefits them.
Do these foot soldiers of the opposition really know what it is they are really fighting for or against, as opposed to what they only believe is true? Are they so wedded to the culture of "Me", that even the thought of contributing a penny to cover the costs of another American's medical treatments makes them tremble with rage and indignation? Had they forgotten that over a trillion of tax money (including their own) was spent on deadly wars that they supported when Bush was president, and that far less money would be spent on health care reform, which would actually create and aid instead of destroy and plunder? What should be a passionate debate on a moral issue concerning all Americans is instead a ruthless, dangerous assault from one small but seething minority on the right that is fueled by fear, contempt, resentment, and racial prejudice. They have turned health care debate into a war, and they aren't afraid of using violence to silence those who want a reasoned discussion. In order to do what's morally right, and honor the memory of a faithful public servant, this discussion should get back on topic--the assurance of a brighter future for the American people.
