Click to see the beacon journal online
Homes   Jobs   Cars   Shopping
Blog of Mass Destruction -- Community Blog

Previous post:

Next post:

The Scold Media & Nadya Suleman

by The Reverend on February 18, 2009

in choice,media,moral values

nadya_suleman

Susie Madrak, blogger at Crooks & Liars, shares a personal anecdote about a story I've been meaning to write about….the Nadya Suleman, octuplets, story….

I was at a party this weekend, and this seemed to be all people wanted to talk about. At first I listened politely, but I finally said, "You know, the people who have screwed up this country would much rather we were angry at this woman than at them. And even if taxpayers paid every dime for these kids for the next 20 years, it wouldn't even be a speck of sand compared to the money these people have cost us – and our grandchildren."

One woman gave me a blank look, then: "Oh. You're right. They keep showing this on TV so we're not thinking about all that other stuff!" Right!

Ms. Suleman's publicists, Joann Killeen and husband Mike Furtney, working for free, have been receiving kind and loving phone calls and e-mails like this….

Soon after the births, the couple began representing Suleman for free, and almost immediately started receiving threatening e-mails and phone calls from people enraged over the octuplets saga, she said.

"They hope I die, they hope my business goes under, they want to rip her uterus out," Killeen said. "They say I should be anesthetized and put down like a dog." Link

Ahhh….America…

After creating a website for Suleman on Tuesday, Killeen said, she received 55,000 e-mails, most of them negative, and she has stacks of angry mail.

On Friday, they contacted the Los Angeles Police Department, and officers told them that the threats were the worst they had seen since the O.J. Simpson case, Killeen said.

"The American public have just lashed out," she said. "I think it has to do with the economy, healthcare — there's not a lot of jobs, people are unemployed and are trying to take care of their families."

NBC's Ann Curry conducted an interview with Ms. Suleman when the story first "broke". At the :45 mark, Ann Curry puts on her best scolding-nun outfit and, I think, makes an ass out of herself…..

The question I have for Nun Ann Curry is: Who in the hell made you America's designated scold and hand wringer? Who in the hell placed you as chairman over the invitro reproduction ethics board of America? The same Ann Curry who would suck the chrome off a trailer hitch for eight years if it helped polish George W. Bush's legacy…..now scolds and self-righteously criticizes and doubts the powerless citizen, Nadya Suleman. Heckuva job…Nun Annie.

Ann Curry, just look at her best scold-face, piously and with a complete lack of self-awareness confronts the powerless Suleman…
"People feel like you're being completely irresponsible…. The world outside is saying, 'what are you doing?'"

Are we? Really? Speaking only for myself, I can tell you that I feel that Ann Curry was acting like a self-righteous, irresponsible and misguided bitch…..and that the world outside is asking of Ann Curry, why are you acting like such a self-righteous, irresponsible and misguided bitch? But that's just the way The Reverend, you know, rolls.

The Reverend's number one rule while critiquing is this….

PICK ON THE POWERFUL, NOT THE POWERLESS

Most often we criticize, second guess, and point our scolding fingers at the wrong people…. family members, our waitresses, the store clerk,….well….you know what I mean……the powerless. Why do we do that? Because we're either too lazy or too timid to take on the powerful. The powerless stand in, as it were, for the powerful, whom we're usually intimidated by. The powerless are an easy target…..and just look…..they're everywhere.

In this specific situation….Nadya Suleman is the powerless person and Ann Curry (and others like her) represents the powerful. Sure, there is mutual exploitation going on in this story…..but is that any justification for Ann Curry's sickening, sanctimonious, knuckle-frapping, scold routine?

The reproductive choices of a single mother are none of our goddamn business. The End.

  • G-Mann

    Sorry Rev, she was wrong to ask for 8 kids. She did it for the attention (as evidenced in how quickly she snapped up interview offers and took a million dollars). She obviously has a mental disorder of some type. The doctor should lose his license, he's already lined up another client who wants multiple kids.

    This has nothing to do with scolding her, or burdening society. It has everything to do with the reasoning behind the act. The woman wants attention, the doctor wants to make a name for himself. It violates no written ethics because most doctors would never purposefully do this.

    I would wish no harm to her or her children. And any American who does is just plain sick. But the medical board should look into this as an ethics violation.

    It's illegal to have too many cats, but it's ok to have too many kids?

  • Da King

    I have to agree with G-Mann here. What took place was very irresponsible. I'm all for people being able to live as they wish as long as they don't hurt others, but I think you can make a strong case that this woman and her doctor are harming those children. Suleman, a single mother with no job, now has 14 children total. That's crazy. With freedom comes responsibility.

    That being said, the media is engaging in extreme overkill on this story, as they always do. I don't think it has anything to do with any other issue though. I assume we can think about more than one thing at once. If the Suleman woman isn't unbalanced (though she probably is), then the constant media scrutiny might drive her there. The media should back off. I was watching Bill O'Reilly go on and on and on about this last night, and I wanted to throw a brick at the television.

  • angry conserv

    Thank ypu Rev,
    I offically have read your last mindless post. "The reproductive choices of a single mother is nobody's business." You have entered the theatre of the absurd. She has 6 kids 3 of which are disabled. Then she has 8 more. What about the lives of the innocent children this deranged woman has brought into the world? Oh yea, they dont matter its all about her rights and the powerful dumping on her. If you want me to agree it is none of my business it should follow that "none of my business" means she not the taxpayers are responsible for her actions.
    Rev, I am sorry that life has been so unfair to you and you have such hatred for those with more "power" however you define that elusive term. But your bitterness and anger prevent you from seperating your emotions from objective thought. I hope things improve for you adios.

  • The Reverend

    One of the most enjoyable parts of blogging is the standing ovations.

    Now, G-Mann, whose right is it to determine what's wrong and what's right for her? And you say that you know why she did what she did, for attention…and the money. The motivation, unless she's on trial, is not relevant, and mind readers are in short supply. And c'mon G…do you think we're qualified to determine sanity from a few video clips?

    It may very well be true that the medical oversight board here needs reform….but that's not Ms. Suleman's fault.

    We all agree on the media, which was really the point. The media scolded the woman openly and often, and that stirred up braindead-enders to go all ape sh*t.

    On the "harming the children" stuff. I know that conservative thought, and specifically libertarian thought, champions individual responsibilty. The thinking includes government staying out of our personal lives, however. angry brings up a legitimate point about taxpayers subsidizing this woman.

    I pointed out the media's part in creating the atmosphere of a mini-witch hunt. They had no right. But what I believe all the bitching is really about….is the fight over fertilized eggs; stem cells, invitro, cloning and what will come from further research and advance. Fear of the future.

    Finally to angry….life has not been unfair to me, far from it. And hatred is not in my makeup. I am passionate about fairness, freedom, and honesty….but not bitter and all mad or overcome with some devilish mind possession. People disagree about stuff. I'm not a fan of hypocrisy and so I am often attracted to stories where hypocrisy is on full display. That's what I saw in this story…in the main media…..Hey, maybe I'm wrong.

  • angry conserv

    Shortly after their birth she announced she wanted to be on two shows. One with Oprah and the other with D. Sawyer. This would give her the proper exposure so her agent could sift through the offers that would lead to the $2 million that she wanted. Then it was on to finish her degree so she could pursue her career as a child rearing specialist on her own tv show. Gee why would I mention money and attention as motives.
    A person doesnt have to arrive at the conclusion she has seroius mental issues by watching a few minutes of her selfserving justiifcation on TV. She ran her family into bankrupcty and mental collapse helping her with the 6 she already had. She ignored their pleas to have no more children when she was incapable of caring for the ones she already had.
    I am not condoning death threats nor do I give a damn about this sad woman but she is the one that NOW has the power. Mom gets to gravy train off the needs of these 14 innocent children she brought into the world.

  • angry conserv

    One last question Rev'
    I assume that once your "free" nat. health care is in place a woman in all issues relating to her reproductive status is free to do what ,when, how and as often as she chooses regardless of the consequences or costs. For you to limit a woman's reproductive rights would make you a hypocrite and we all know what you think of hypocrites. True or False?

  • larry d.

    It seems to me having the 8 extra kids is allowing her to support her first six. She's crazy like a fox.

    It's kind of like the dems with expanding government bureaucracies and pushing for more illegal immigrant rights.

  • The Reverend

    Man, this one really got under your skin, angry…..sorry.

    As I said earlier, you had the most reasonable objection to what Ms. Suleman did. I do not believe, if a woman chooses to have multiple children by invitro, that taxpayers should pay for it.

    Health care will never be free in America. Universal perhaps, but not free. If universal health care comes to America, I would expect that previous invitro practices and ethics would be reformed and standardized in such a way that if a woman desired multiple implants….she would pay for them herself.

    The non-limiting I referred to was the woman's freedom to choose what she wanted for her life…..but didn't include government paying for those choices. That's a different issue.

  • The Reverend

    And I can always count on larry.

    I'll tell ya' what…..let's cut taxes to zero and do away with Medicare and Social Security and dismantle the federal, state and local government structures….all of it.

    No defense, no roads, no medical care, not even for the elderly, no schools, no science research….nothing. Then let the great masters of the free market solve all of our national and international problems, because gub'mint is, you know, the problem.

    Think that might work?

  • Da King

    larry,
    Speaking of illegal immigrants, I was thinking, if we have 10 million unemployed persons in America, and 12 million illegals…..

    Maybe Americans will have to start doing the jobs Americans won't do.

  • Da King

    Watch out, Rev. You're sounding like a Libertarian when you say, " the woman's freedom to choose what she wanted for her life…..but didn't include government paying for those choices."

    You are correct. One person shouldn't have to pay for another person's choices. That's why, for instance, I shouldn't have to pay a 61 cent cigarette tax to pay for some other person's kid's health insurance. They made the choice to have the kid, not me. The responsiblity to provide for their child is theirs, not mine. Such a tax rewards them for their choice and penalizes me. It's discriminatory, and policies like that encourage irresponsible behavior. Society as a whole suffers because of it.

    The Libertarian rule is – your rights end at another person's nose, which is also, btw, the reason we have government, to enforce those rights. Nobody is advocating NO government. It's just that government shouldn't be in the business of taking rights away, of discriminating against one person for the benefit of another. That's unconstitutional.

  • averagejoe5

    I saw whe was part of the stimulus package……

  • The Reverend

    Good one joe.

Previous post:

Next post:

 

© The Akron Beacon Journal • 44 E. Exchange Street, Akron, Ohio 44308

Powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).