Grama's space bubble

Quote

YouTube - Testimony of illegal alien care from 1 Florida hospital
  

Quote

YouTube - Tea Party Protesters Assaulted by Illegal Alien Amnesty Supporters in Ft...
  

Quote

YouTube - "Give Me Back My America" sung by John Berry_Atlanta, GA
  

Quote

YouTube - Jack Webb Schools Barack Obama on Healthcare
  

Quote

YouTube - Anyway
  

Quote

YouTube - The Take Down
  

Quote

YouTube - Jello Wrestlers Best Friends
  

Quote

YouTube - Young Con Anthem
  

Quote

YouTube - Charity Blanton sings National Anthem on May 28, 2009 Graduation
  

Quote

YouTube - " I will Always Love You" sung by Charity Blanton
  

Quote

YouTube - "Love Me Tender"
  

Quote

YouTube - Charity Blanton singing Here I Am
  

“Final Goodbye” is written, composed, and sung by Charity G. Blanton

Awards Night Quartz Hill High School, May 14, 2009

Charity will be reporting for Basic Training in late June.

At the Academy in addition to her studies, Charity will be a member of the Falcon Soccer team.

"There is no dignity quite so impressive,

and no one independence quite so important,

as living within your means."

-U.S President Calvin Coolidge

This is a great song.  To experience it,

click on

I Am a Born Again American

and then turn the sound on loud!

It's snowing.  It's snowing.  The old man is snoring!

It is a winter wonderland.  Grace and Charity made a  B-I-G  snowman.

They gave it a smile and green eyes.  It was pretty cute.  See for yourself.

He looks pretty small, but eyes can be deceiving.  Check it out next to Grace.

The flakes of snow came down all day long.  Sparky and Charity liked it a lot.

Sparky didn't understand what all the fuss was about.  He could take it or leave it.  He'd rather leave it.  He likes his water melted.  It splashes better that way.  He would rather splash in it than slide on it.  That is just the way it is with his breed.

It has been quite a few years since it snowed here.  I guess that blows the warming theory out the window--it is no longer warm on this side of the earth!

Thanks Australia

Written by an Australian Dentist....and too good to delete....

To Kill an American

You probably missed this in the rush of news, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper, an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American.

So an Australian dentist wrote an editorial the following day to let everyone know what an American is . So they would know when they found one. (Good one, mate!!!!)

'An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek. An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani or Afghan.
An American may also be a Comanche, Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans.
An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim. In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan.The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses.

An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.

An American lives in the most prosperous land in the history of the world.

The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence , which recognizes the God given right of each person to the pursuit of happiness.
An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return.
When Afghanistan was over-run by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country!

As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan . Americans welcome the best of everything...the best products, the best books , the best music, the best food, the best services. But they also welcome the least.
The national symbol of America , The Statue of Liberty , welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed. These in fact are the people who built America .

 
Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11, 2001 earning a better life for their families. It's been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 different countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.

 
So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, and other blood-thirsty tyrants in the world. But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself . Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.

I received this via e-mail.  I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I did.

CRABBY OLD MAN

When an old man died in the geriatric ward of a nursing home in North Platte, Nebraska,

it was believed that he had nothing left of any value.
Later, when the nurses were going through his meager possessions, they found this poem . Its quality and content so impressed the staff that copies were made and distributed to every nurse in the hospital.
One nurse took her copy to  Missouri.  The old man's sole bequest to posterity has since appeared in the Christmas edition of the News Magazine of the St . Louis Association for Mental Health .   A slide presentation has also been made based on his simple, but eloquent, poem.
And this little old man, with nothing left to give to the world, is now the author of this 'anonymous' poem winging across the Internet .

Crabby Old Man

What do you see nurses? . . What do you see?
What are you thinking . . . . . when you're looking at me?
A crabby old man . . . not very wise,
Uncertain of habit . . . . . . . . with faraway eyes?
Who dribbles his food . . . . . . . and makes no reply.
When you say in a loud voice . . . . . 'I do wish you'd try!'
Who seems not to notice . . . the things that you do .
And forever is losing . . . . . . . . . . A sock or shoe?
Who, resisting or not . . . . . . . . . . . lets you do as you will,
With bathing and feeding the long day to fill?
Is that what you're thinking?   Is that what you see?
Then open your eyes, nurse . . . . . . you're not looking at me.
I'll tell you who I am. As I sit here so still,
As I do at your bidding . . . . . . as I eat at your will.
I'm a small child of Ten . . . . . . . with a father and mother
Brothers and sisters . . . . . . . . . who love one another
A young boy of Sixteen . . with wings on his feet
Dreaming that soon now . . . . . . . a lover he'll meet .
A groom soon at Twenty . my heart gives a leap .
Remembering, the vows . . . . . . that I promised to keep .
At Twenty-Five, now . . . . . . . . . . I have young of my own .
Who need me to guide . . . . And a secure happy home
A man of Thirty . . . . . . . . . My young now grown fast,
Bound to each other . . . . . . . With ties that should last .
At Forty, my young sons . . have grown and are gone,
But my woman's beside me . . . . . . . to see I don't mourn .
At Fifty, once more, . Babies play 'round my knee,
Again, we know children . . . . . . . My loved one and me .
Dark days are upon me . . My wife is now dead .
I look at the future . . . . . . . . . . . . I shudder with dread .
For my young are all rearing . . . . . . young of their own .
And I think of the years . . . . . And the love that I've known .
I'm now an old man . . . . . . . . . and nature is cruel.
Tis jest to make old age . look like a fool.
The body, it crumbles . . . . . . . . . . grace and vigor depart .
There is now a stone . . . . . . . . where I once had a heart .
But inside this old carcass . . A young guy still dwells,
And now and again . . . . . . . my battered heart swells
I remember the joys . . . . . . . . . . . I remember the pain .
And I'm loving and living . . . . . . . . . . . . . life over again .
I think of the years all too few . . . . . . gone too fast .
And accept the stark fact . . . . . . . . that nothing can last .
So open your eyes, people . . . . . . . . open and see..
Not a crabby old man .   Look closer . .... . . see . . . .

. ME!!

Remember this poem when you next meet an older person who you might brush aside without looking at the young soul within . . . . . we will all, one day, be there, too!
PLEASE SHARE THIS POEM
The best and most beautiful things of  this world can't be seen or touched . They must be felt by the heart . 

God Bless

The following is an excerpt from a beautiful letter sent to the The Bible Based Ministries, South Africa.  The author is a black woman from the United States.  She presents another point of view: 

.  .  .  As I read [your personal testimony], I could relate to many, many things that you wrote about; and I also marveled about certain similarities in our lives.  .  .  .  But although my race and gender is different from yours (I.e. I am a black woman); and the Lord converted me far later in life (age 35) than you; there were quite a few similarities that I could identify along with you. The first one being: coming out of that terribly destructive Charismatic Arminian error, losing friends along the way, and longing for fellowship amongst true believers who share the same desire to separate from the evils of worldliness and compromise...

For me it can be a particularly lonely walk from the standpoint that many people do not understand that when it comes to standing firmly on the side of Christ verses going the way of cultural “traditions” (so to speak) – I have to roundly reject “tradition” if it contradicts God’s clear teaching. This is because the Lord (in His amazing grace) has so deeply changed my heart to love and serve Him; and to see things much differently than ever before. Let me give you an example. Here in the USA, I know many blacks who claim to be Christian but who are supporting Obama just because of his skin color. The expectation is – I should be supporting him, too. But as a Christian there is no way I can support this man who is pro-abortion, pro-sodomy; not to mention his socialist/communist leanings, etc., etc., and other problems. In fact, Obama stayed in a church that was preaching Liberation Theology. It caused a huge controversy because of ugly statements his “pastor” made. Obama only left this “church” (which is filled with heresy and lies) because of political expediency. Clearly, by his fruit he’s not a true Christian – though he claims to be.

Another example is Martin Luther King, Jr. – whose real name was Michael King. I learned the shocking truth about this man a few years ago and there is no way I could “celebrate” his birthday or his memory or anything else. The things I found out about him were (and are!) so filthy. And (from what was documented in his own writings) King wasn’t at all a true Christian, as he denied almost every single foundational teaching of Christianity. Yet just because we share the same color (and because of the “civil rights” issues), many expect that I should overlook these things. Here in America it is like a “sacred cow” (if you will) to say anything against the “great” “Rev. Dr.” Martin Luther King, Jr.!! However, as a true believer I cannot in any way overlook who this man really was. As it is written in God’s Holy Word (in 2 Cor. 5:17), “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” This is so true!

Thank you for “Rehearsing What God Has Done.” The newsletter greatly encouraged me. Please know that I continue to pray for your country and the brethren in SA. I know there are many difficult things going on, particularly regarding the racial conditions in SA. These have not always been easy to read about. Still, I understand the truth must be expressed. As you said in one of your messages that I’m listening to right now, entitled “Zion, City of God” (referring to the verse in Jer. 13:23), it is not the color of the skin that matters. It is the condition of the heart that must be dealt with. The heart of depraved mankind is black with sin until the Lord so graciously and mercifully washes it “as white as snow” (Is. 1:18).

I am grateful that the Lord, in saving my soul and forgiving my sins, has not only given me a heart to love Him and serve Him; but He’s given me a brand new heart to love others (especially Christian brothers and sisters) regardless of their skin color. When I say love I am not talking about turning a blind eye to error and not addressing sin. I mean as believers the truth is (as it is written in Gal. 3:28): “There is neither Jew nor Greek...for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Yet sometimes people will abandon this verse when family ties or skin color or nationality or past history or tradition or other things are involved...

Meanwhile, I will pray along with you (as you wrote in your article entitled “Witchcraft and Crime in South Africa”) that the “Spirit of God can change the hearts of black South Africans.” In addition, I will pray that it would please the Lord to change the hearts of all kinds of men and women, who are in bondage to sin and Satan, regardless of their skin color so that they may believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of their sins. Only God can do it...!

No way am I saying that the system of slavery in the USA (which was marked by brutality in many instances) was good. Not at all. Many terrible things were done. But it’s long been over with and it’s long been time to move on. So many blacks are still harping about slavery and/or racism as an excuse for almost every single problem in their lives; and/or for the problems among the races. The fact is many of the deep down problems have to do with the personal sin in their lives. As Christians we are called to “press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:14); not whine or blame others for past hurts...

Again, thank you for such a beautiful 25^th Anniversary edition. Please take care – you and your family. I pray that you are all well and safe.

United States

A Nail Stuck, An Analysis of Tennessee Williams’ “The Glass Menagerie” By Trudy A. Martinez

When reading The Glass Menagerie, one feels pity for Tom because his mother mistreats him; this is such a tragedy because she places the entire responsibility of the family upon his shoulders, as if to fulfill a fallacy that there has to be a man in the house if woman is to survive. Time changes with the World War, allowing women to enter the work force. However, Tom’s mother does not work toward finding suitable work herself as a means of remedying their situation. Instead, she lives in an imaginary world; wanting her children to remedy the situation for her so she can continue living her fantasy. The picture of the father symbolizes this obsession because it is in a most advantageous place: above them all--forever smiling.

The smiling father serves to remind Amanda of a tragic mistake. Yet, it is her "hawk like attention" at the dinner table, driving her son, which mostly catches a reader’s attention. How can anyone eat in peace with someone telling him or her how? ". . . Don't push with your fingers . . . And chew—chew . . . Eat food leisurely, son" is Amanda's dinner conversation (Williams 1464). It is surprising; Tom does not get indigestion. One might say, it is the mother's place to correct her children; but Tom is not a child. Amanda has obviously married beneath her class structure as not many of the lower class bother to stress "[Eating] food leisurely" (Williams 1464). The lower classes are like slaves to the bourgeois; they are fortunate to have time to eat at all, much less leisurely. Tom refers to being a slave to his mother's legacy during an argument with her. However, the children’s actions are a constant disappointment and never satisfying to the mother; she pre-judges them as failures. Even so, she is never discouraged from fulfilling her own goals through them.

On the other hand, the opposite is true of her offspring; both Tom and Laura are discouraged. They reject the goals their mother sets. What a tragedy Amanda cultivates through her constant search for perfection within her children. Her aggressive behavior toward fulfilling her own goals (remaining in the past--her imaginary world-- and regaining that higher status) has a reverse affect upon her children. This reflects her constant referral to "gentlemen callers" and through her fear of Tom not attaining higher money earning status and Laura not attaining a money earning status at all. She reminds Laura to ". . . study your typewriter chart . . . [and] . . . practice your shorthand . . .” While at the same time stating”, Stay fresh and pretty"[for men callers]! (Williams 1466). Knowledge is that “. . . aggression given full rein and allowed to run its course in a constant war of all against all, [jeopardizes] . . . survival. . . Clashing interests and social values underlie . . . human conflict"(Vander Zanden 370). Amanda's clashing interest and aggression is not an exception. Her interest clearly clashes with the interests of her children. She lives only in the memory of her "social roots" where "charm" and an aggressive nature rein in the bourgeois class, a hierarchical structure she secretly wants to re-gain. Nonetheless, by seeking to regain her privilege status through her children, she becomes her own gatekeeper.

When Amanda makes herself the gatekeeper, she becomes susceptible to fate. The theme of The Glass Menagerie is one of vulnerability. What constitutes this concept? When one is vulnerable, are they not both trusting and unsuspecting? This is not the case with Amanda; she is suspicious and non-trusting. She flaunts her suspicious and non-trusting nature in the direction of her son by way of her continual interrogations, assumptions and comparisons: "I think you've been doing things that your ashamed of . . . Nobody in their right minds goes to the movies as often as you pretend to . . . You remind me of your father [gone]" (Williams 1478-1492). Therefore, considering her vulnerable cannot be because of any action of Tom's. His action only brings about the inevitable.

The inevitable came into being only after imagination came into conflict with reality. The breaking of the glass unicorn symbolizes the shattering of imagination by reality. Jim, the only realistic character in the play, is the one who bears a message of truth. He says, "Being disappointed is one thing and being discouraged is something else"(Williams 1498). However, it is not until the unicorn loses its horn that Laura is able to accept the Glass Menagerie for what it is: a collection of ornaments. The glass pieces represent an imaginary world where she had been willfully imprisoned. At this point, her disappointment no longer discourages her. She is accepting of the realization that not only is the unicorn now like all the other glass ornaments but she is like everyone else. She is no longer a failure as her mother depicted nor does she need to rely on imagination or deception to feel she is special. Her mother implies, "All pretty girls are a trap, a pretty trap, and men expect them to be"(Williams 1486). Laura's perception of the situation differs. She acknowledges the difference when she says, "Maybe [breaking the unicorn's horn off] is a blessing in disguise" (Williams 1502). Then later, she gives the unicorn that has lost its uniqueness to Jim as a souvenir.

Not long before, her brother gives Laura a souvenir, ". . . a shimmering rainbow colored scarf . . . Tom had told her that it was a ‘magic scarf’." All "You [had to do was] wave it over a gold-fish bowl and they [would] fly away canaries...” (Williams 1474). The goldfish bowl is symbolic of the life Tom and Laura live in "human desperation" (Williams 1463) under the unchallenged hierarchy of their mother. Whereas, the "fly away canaries" suggest both Tom and Laura could become songbirds and fly away to escape from their mother's tyranny. All it would take to make it happen is for Laura to wave the "magic scarf". However, had Laura waved the scarp when she emerged from her imaginary world or Had Tom flew away too soon?

Tom shares with Laura his desire to leave so she is aware of his intent; she does not become vulnerable because he leaves. Instead, Tom is the vulnerable one because he flies away like a songbird without facing reality. He does not learn that "So long as boundaries and hierarchies go unchallenged, aggression is inhibited" (Vander Zanden 371). Tom is too trusting and unsuspecting of his own purpose. Therefore, he is unable to take an aggressive stand in his own freedom. Consequently, he becomes ". . . lost in space--"(Williams 1507).

In Tom's time space, his memories pursue him and his imagination takes control. The most amazing thing he sees is when a magician ". . . got [himself] out of the coffin without removing one nail". Tom wants to do the same. He tells Laura, ". . . it don't take much intelligence to get yourself into a nailed-up coffin . . . But who in hell ever got himself out of one without removing one nail?” (Williams 1474). There is the constant reminder of his father's smiling face that serves as a reminder: "If there is a will, there is a way". Even so, did Tom find the way by leaving when he did? Alternatively, does he carry on the family legacy? He appears to have a nail stuck in his heart, which keeps him imprisoned in a coffin (a trap) of his own making, an imaginary world where he envisions the "tiny transparent . . . 'colored glass' . . . bottles . . . [as] . . . bits of [his] shattered rainbow"(Williams 1507). The shattered rainbow is symbolic of the "magic scarf" he gives Laura. His mother tells him he manufactures illusions! (Williams 1507). Yet, he does not challenge her position. Consequently, he follows in her footsteps manufacturing illusions just as she has. As a result, he makes his own tragic mistake. If this is not the case, why does he continue to search for escapes or "--anything that [can] blow . . . out [the memories of Laura]"? (Williams 1507). The memories of Laura remind Tom of his tragedy just as the picture of his father's smiling face serves to remind his mother of her own.

Work Cited

Williams, Tennessee. "The Glass Menagerie". The Bedford Introduction to Literature. Michael Meyer, ed. Bedford Books of St. Martin's Press: Boston. 1990. 1462-1507.

Vander Zanden, James W. Social Psychology. Fourth Edition. Ohio State University. Random House: New York. 1987.

"A Life Versus Death Struggle:"  If the Medical Profession Calculates the Value of Life on an Economical Basis, Who Calculates the Value of Death?

By Trudy A. Martinez

Once upon a time in America, an individual was guaranteed the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Then death was a natural process. The meaning of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" changes with the growth of the Medical industry. Life itself becomes a pursuit of the medical profession, leaving the value of death obscure as medicine views death as a failure and the right to die hinders medicines’ quest for technological immorality.

Because death is a failure to the medical profession, the prolonging of life by artificial means rejects bereavement, leaving death with no place in life. When Mary Catherine Bateson examines, "What is needed to give death its proper place in life?" She says, "In rejecting death, [society sets itself] against nature"(8). "Having interfered with the process . . . [society] should accept the fact that the cast and glory of technical progress is to require choice: . . . choice of how to die"(8).

In other words, Bateson advocates the "right to die". In 1971, the Supreme Court rules “there is no constitutional right to choose to die" (Kearl 412). Nevertheless, death does not necessitate constitutional approval. Death is a natural process.

On the other hand, death revolts physicians since natural death hinders medicine's quest for technological immortality (Guillemin 32). Therefore, "dying . . . is not something the individual patient . . . really does, [dying] is a matter of . . . withdrawing life supports" (Guillemin 32). Many doctors feel to choose to die over maintaining life on life support is committing suicide. In ancient time, “because life was so trivialized, Romans and Greeks raised few moral objections to suicide, and they usually only protested suicide when it caused economic or social loss"(Barry 25).

Life in America, on the other hand, is not trivialized; instead, life is immortalized, causing death to lose its right. As a result, in an immortal society for an individual to re-claim the natural right of death, he resorts to what the medical institutions now define as suicide, unplugging the machines. Such a death does not constitute a social loss when the individual's quality of life is gone. To retain life that has loss quality causes an unnecessary economical drain on the family and the patient, while at the time, it has the opposite affect on medical professionals; they benefit economically. Although a medical professional may believe he has the patient's best interest at heart, not always does he serve the patient’s best interest. This is especially true when considering the spiraling cost of maintaining life supports in the equation.

"If antiquity privatized suicide and objected only when there was economic or social loss, Medieval Christianity saw a deeper meaning and value in life"(Barry 26). However, in current times, death to a Christian has more value than life as the medical institutions defines life. For a Christian death brings life forever after. Yet, life, in the sense of forever, is in heaven, not on earth. To some dying individuals, whether Christian or not, death has worth; it ends suffering and pain. To the Medical industry, life has worth; it increases profits, while at the same time, decreases a sense of failure. Consequently, a safeguard to the health-care profession's own perception of adequacy requires the devaluation of death.

When death is devalued, the voice of the people rings out: "Whose death is it, anyway?” (Seligmann 69). Once, death came naturally. Then, a decision to die was not necessary. However, technology changes all that. For example, the question asked about Carrie Coons, 86, was "Does she want to die?" Such a question is unfair. Nobody wants to die if his or her life has a promise of quality. However, Mrs. Coons lost through deprivation a quality of life. She was "kept alive by a feeding tube," a state "her doctor called a 'persistent vegetative state'"(69). "Dr. Michael Wolff . . . called her chances of recovery 'nil'"(69). Even though she was in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery, Mrs. Coon's sister had to seek and receive a court order "to have the feeding tube removed"(69). With total disregard for the family wishes and with the knowledge that her chances of recovery were non-existent, the doctor requests a hearing that blocks the order "to remove the feeding tube". Why? Because doctors believe in order for death to be natural, it requires a decision. When the doctor asks Mrs. Coons "whether she wanted her feeding tube removed", she answers, "according to Wolff, it would be a difficult decision"(69). Wolff assumes her answer implies she wants to live regardless of her quality of life. Yet, is this really the case? Her sister says, "From the look in her eyes . . . she [is] trying to tell me, 'Let me go'" (69). She lingers now "in limbo until she either speaks clearly or dies"(69). In other words, her sentence is a life of suffering, not a life of happiness, but one that is literally a "Hell on Earth".

In the past when our ancestors cried: Give me life, liberty, or death, little did they know that when life is given, liberty is curtailed, and death is denied. ". . .To dispense death is one [decision] in which society as a whole has no interest"(The Economist 60). Today ". . . autonomy decides . . . the ‘right to die’ but it is a principle that . . . leans toward life, not death"(The Economist 60). This is probably so because most people want to live. Nevertheless, some want to end the suffering and pain and die as naturally as possible. They want "To civilize death, to bring it home and make it no longer a source of dread . . . . The road leads . . . to acceptance and understanding" (The Economist 60).

Not all doctors agree abandoning treatment achieves the primary good or that an individual has the capability to decide for himself. For instance, Dr. David C. Stolinsky, M.D. says, lawyers and ethicists persuade us to regard “. . . The cessation of active treatment for the senile or incurably ill and the omission of effective treatment at the patient's request . . . as definite goods to be eagerly embraced . . . . [Therefore, the] competing good--beneficence--has been largely displaced. . . . [In addition] autonomy has out paced beneficence. . . I believe it is a mistake to make [autonomy] superior to ‘Thou shalt not kill’ . . . . But those who encourage it, even for the best motives, are in fact performing an experiment with all of us as subjects . . . I don't recall giving my informed consent" (Appelbaum 2).

The trouble with doctors like Stolinsky is they feel they are superior and they should rule over a patient's right to autonomy.

Stolinsky says, too much autonomy can lead to blaming the patient for his illness, an abdication of responsibility for decision-making, an uncaring attitude toward society's unfortunates, and (in the extreme) allowing various "undesirable" to die as we stand by (Appelbaun 2).

He says autonomy should not be superior to "Thou shalt not kill", but in fact, unknowingly, he puts beneficence superior to "Thou shalt not steal." When technology deprives a patient of death by supporting a life lacking of quality has not a theft occurred? Because of these type of circumstances, patients like L. McAfee are being forced to "petition . . . [courts] for permission to turn off" ventilators or other artificial means that purport to "prolong life", when in actuality, they are only "prolonging death" (Death Wish 67).

McAfee's death was prolonged after ". . . a motorcycle accident left him paralyzed from the neck down", leaving him dependent upon artificial means to maintain a life without quality or hope. McAfee won his right to autonomy, his right to refuse medical treatment. In winning his right to refuse medical treatment, McAfee gains his "death wish" (Death Wish 67). "McAfee's situation has revived a smoldering controversy over whether health-care providers should help the disabled commit suicide" (Death Wish 67). The question is disconnecting an artificial means that maintains an inadequate quality of life committing suicide? If Stolinsky were to decide, the answer would be yes. However, Stolinsky puts no value on death. On the other hand when you consider all McAfee wants is to allow the removal of artificial means that robs his death from him, the answer to the question should be no. When the value of life is not meaningful, the value of death is priceless. Judge Johnson found McAfee to be a rational adult and that his "death wish" had value. Consequently, he ruled that McAfee had the "right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. . . ." The Judge said, "The ventilator to which he is attached is not prolonging his life; it is prolonging his death"(Death Wish 67).

Life is "The heartache that has no end" in the case of Kim Goetchius. She suffers from a severe head injury received after she fell from a "careening golf cart". Since then, she has been in a persistent vegetative state for a period of eight years. Hope for her recovery is non-existent. Nevertheless, artificial means keeps her alive, hoping for a miracle. She is not alone; 10 percent of the patients at the St. John Dealon Hospital share the same status. The spiraling cost annually per patient suggests profits of the institution plays a role in the decision to maintain life supports. Why else would Kim's grave condition leave her doctor, Timothy Keay, agonizing "over the unanswerable question:" Are we ". . . protecting life or making a mockery of it?" (Buckley 54).

Not only is death prolonged but death also comes prematurely through unnecessary medical intervention. "Death comes from medical reason, not moral reasons” (Kearl 418) for the sake of profit. Evidence points to economic factors that leave the government with the bill. A Congressional investigation in 1977 discloses, "The likelihood of receiving unnecessary treatment is related to one's position in the status hierarchy. . . . Useless surgery being performed on the needy and the poor [occurs] at twice the rate of that of the general population"(Kearl 419). Needlessly, the useless surgery lead to profits as further evidence reveals "2.38 million unnecessary operations" cause "11,900 needless deaths" and reaps "4 billion dollars" in the process (Kearl 418-419). "In overthrowing . . . the moral [reasons], medicine must now address . . . how patterns of death [relate] to the economic . . . structure . . ."(Kearl 423).

Since life through the health care system "is being . . . sold in the marketplace and distributed on the basis of who can afford to pay for it (Kearl 423)," then it must hold true calculated financial factors determine the value of life. Successively, the value of death must come from the individual through the choice of not buying what is sold.

Not buying what is sold may mean not calling 911. Nine-one-one is a cry for help. If you do not wish help through resuscitation, have your family call the mortuary instead. A call to 911 brings paramedics and police officers. Once the call is made, all attempts possible will be made to resuscitate whether you want that or not. Only the immediate producing of a recorded copy of a Heath Care Power of Attorney can stop an unwanted procedure (the person with the power of attorney must be present to decline help). In addition and as a normal procedure, a police officer investigates the scene to insure no foul play has occurred. To eliminate the hassle, call the mortuary and claim the value of your death.

Bibliography:

Appelbaum, Paul S. "Death and the Doctors". Commentary. Vol.82. July ' 86. 2-4.
Barry, Robert "The Paradoxes of 'Rational' Death.” Society. Vol. 29. July/August ' 92. 29-33.
Bateson, Mary Catherine. "Death--the Undiscover'd Country": What is Needed to Give Death its Proper Place in Life? Omni. New York. April '92. vol. 14. p8.
Buckley, Jerry. "How Doctors Decide Who Shall Live, Who Shall
Die”: The Heartache Has No End. U.S. News & World Report.
January 22 '90. Vol. 108. 50-58.

"Death Wish": Quadriplegic L. Mc Afee Wins Right to Refuse
Medical Treatment. Time. Vol. 134. September 18 ' 89. p67.
The Economist. "How to 'Civilize' Death.” World Press Review.
Vol. 38. October '91. p60.

Guillemin, Jeanne. "Planning to Die". Society. Vol. 29. July/August '92. 29-33.
Kearl, Michael C. "Death and the Medical System.” Endings: A Sociology of Death and Dying. Oxford University Press: New York. 1989. 406- 453.

Seligmann, Jean "Whose Death is it, Anyway?” Newsweek. Vol. 113. April 24 '89. p69.

Noble Chivalry Shines, a Comparative Analysis of The Country Wife, The Mode of Man, and The Way of the World

By Trudy A. Martinez

The messages in the plays, The Country Wife, The Mode of Man, and The Way of the World, all communicate and center on a political universe. The supporting environment of the plays is not as obvious as the personal or social nature. Nevertheless, the representation of the characters is of a political nature. Through the comical characterizations of wit or lack of wit, the effectiveness, or weakness of an aristocratic perspective of honor, and respectability, (in regards to marriage and fidelity) falls upon public scrutiny. Each author contributes a viewpoint of the upper class populace deserving of corrective consideration. Only in Congreve's The Way of the World is the matchless disposition of a true noble reached, justifying social statue, and claim over the money elite.

Comparing and contrasting the maneuvers and the characters of all three plays reveals the genius of Congreve's complex Restoration comedy. Underneath Congreve's complex interaction of characters, there abides integrity of fair play, a perception of truth. Mirabell affirms this sense of truth. In the other two plays, there is not a solid match to Mirabell, although Dorimant comes close.

Where Dorimant lacks compassion for his former loves, Mirabell remains a friend, confidant, and an ultimate protector of Mrs. Fainall's reputation and wealth; he preserves a faculty of obligation. Through this sense of commitment, the association with noble chivalry shines and ultimately emphasizes responsibility of the noble ruling class.

Fainall, at first, appears as a perfect Restoration wit (in the same class as Mirabell). Nevertheless, later, he reveals himself as a villain, materialistic in nature with interests only in money and prestige. In his attempts to deceive, Mirabell (a true-wit in a noble capacity) out maneuvers him, leaving none of the demands he has made to Mrs. Wishfort fulfilled.

In the play The Country Wife, Wycherley explores the ideals of the city life versus country life. Ironic situations reveal the nature of the social and personal worlds of the characters. The demeanor surveyed is partially summed up by both Horner and Pinchwife in their discussion of what constitutes consideration in the taking a wife. Horner thinks "...Wit is more necessary than beauty..." for he considers "...no woman ugly that has it, and no handsome woman agreeable without it" (Wycherley 13). Dorimant shares a similar admiration for women possessing wit; he finds his match, and love in Harriet. On the other hand, Horner has no intention of limiting himself to one woman or of marrying. Instead, he fixes his intentions on enjoying his liberty and everyone else's wife. His elaborate scheme concocts to identify the willing and gain the confidence of the unsuspecting (the husbands). One of his prior statements sums up his ideology: "Wine gives you liberty” . . . and "love takes it away" (Wycherley 9).

In contrast to Horner's ideology, Pinchwife considers, the general truth of the matter to be, that ". . . he's a fool that marries, but he's a greater [fool] that does not marry a fool . . . .” Pinchwife's question reveals his reasoning, "What is wit in a wife good for, but to make a man cuckold? “ (Wycherley 13). Thus, Pinchwife justifies his method of chicanery by keeping a country wife as a whore. Through his actions, he believes he prevents himself from becoming cuckold by the deceitful practices of men like Horner.

The comedy of The Country Wife is set in motion in the opening line with an [aside] that confers clarity of meaning and necessity for the quack: "A quack is as fit for a pimp as a midwife for a bawd; they are still but in their way both helpers of nature.--"(Wycherley 4). The consequence of this line gives precedence to the technique of using [aside] (a device employed by the French playwright Moliere in Tartuffe) to succeed in the realization of the comical affect. In addition, Quack's verbal interaction with Horner furnishes the audience with first hand knowledge of Horner's devious purpose from the beginning of the play to the end.

As the play continues, a comical aspect of the social and personal worlds of the characters reveals the play’s direction by way of the cuckold dance.

Etherege's play, The Man of Mode, takes an altogether different direction when Dorimant opens the play with an articulate reference to the French Bourbon grandson of Louis XIV of France and great-grandson of Phillip IV of Spain:

"Now, for some ages, had the pride of Spain

made the sun shine on half the world in vain."

Thus, a focus of contrast between the French and English is set in motion. By proceeding in this manner, Etherege portrays the quality of nature following from a higher to lower level as if to suggest that political approaches are the cause of the deterioration of morales. Consequently, an achievement highlights through the portrayal of the characters a counter balance between the two ideologies. Sir Fopling’s characterizing astutely archetypes the augmentation of the French upper class. Whereas, the characterization of Dorimant portrays England's Prototype, born of title. Although Dorimant admits to the ideology of Hobbes that man is naturally depraved by saying, "Love gilds us over and makes us show fine things to one another for a time . . . soon the gold wears off, and then again the native brass appears"(Etherege 100), he does not accept the French King's adaptation of the concept. Instead, he sees through the false claim to nobility by Sir Fopling. The procurement of Sir Fopling's station in the social order (subjugated to Louis XIV) manifests through Sir Fopling's social blunders and recognizable, exaggerates elegancy and intelligence and then compares to the superior, natural wit and intelligence of the English noble through the interaction of the characters.

King Louis believes God gave him a divine right of power and declares, "I am the State". The theory of Hobbes, who states people are naturally brutal and nasty (and the government is established by them to protect themselves from themselves), gives Louis absolute power. The government is to govern the people; they have no choice but to be obedient. Stemming from this ideology, feudal nobles disappear as Louis gives honor and income to only those who earn his favor. As a result, the middle class purchase titles and are encouraged to do so through opportunity. Mannerism reign supreme over morales.

On the other hand, the English see intelligence and wit as superior qualities. The English exercising their choice with the restoration of the Stuart Line after Cromwell’s military dictatorship failed highlighted this difference. The belief was that the people gave the power to the King Charles II and the people had the right to take that power away. Intelligence and wit were the indication of notable worth, although the rising upper class put more significance in wealth than did the social class.

Etherege effectively conveyed the posture of the French and English through Dorimant (the true wit in The Man of Mode). Dorimant initiated the caricature significance of Sir Fopling's position by sharing his observation of Sir Fopling when he says, "...he affects in imitation of the people of quality of France"(Etherege 89). The significance of Sir Fopling appears to serve as a means of exaggerating the position of the money elite within the society, eager for fame and money--yet, irresponsible and somewhat ignorant. Like wise, in The Way of the World, Fainall imitates the people of quality in England. At first, he appears as a perfect Restoration Wit when he says, "...The coldness of a losing gamester lessens the pleasure of winner. I'd no more play with a man that slighted his ill fortune than I'd make love to a woman who undervalued the loss of her reputation"(Congreve 157). Dorimant had made a similar assertion when he said, "I would not have a woman have the least good thought of me that can think well of Fopling" (Etherege 101). They both exhibit jurisdiction, dominance, and control over their conquests. However, Dorimant is not greedy for wealth as is the case with Fainall. Fainall betrays himself. Consequently, his greed for money and prestige converts his characterization to a villain.

Sir Fopling's presentation of himself absolves Dorimant's delineation of Sir Fopling. For example, when errors made by mispronouncing words in an attempt to flatter Dorimant, Sir Fopling enhances the status of his own ignorance, "I have not met with any . . . who retain so much of Paris as thou dost--the very air thou hadst when the marquise mistook thee I' th' Tuileries and cried 'H'e, chevalier!’” (Etherege 109). Dorimant's reply, "I would fain wear in fashion as long as I can, sir. ‘ Tis a thing to be valued in men as well as baubles" (Etherege 109)) escapes the understanding of Sir Fopling. In other words, Sir Fopling is unable to cover up his ignorance with stylish clothes or mannerisms. Although Fainall is not as vain as Sir Fobling is in regard to mannerisms and dress, he lacks the integrity of that which is valued in men of quality and he exaggerates the relevance of material wealth.

In The Man of Mode, not much of the plot depends upon the interaction of the characters. Whereas, in The Way of the World, by the end of the first Act the whole plot is given away very cleverly through the interactions of Foible and Mrs. Fainall while the enemy listens in Lady Wishfort's closet in Act III. A rivalry between the characters disengages the movement the plot, enhancing the complexity, and distinguishing Congreve's style over the other playwrights.

For instance, a rivalry first begins in Act I with Mirabell and Fainall through Act V. In the final Act, the distinguishing qualities of both men are exposed. When Fainall takes his stand, his statement reflects his greed, "If it must all come out . . .'tis but the way of the world. That shall not urge me to relinquish or abate one title of my terms; no, I will insist the more"(Congreve 214). Nevertheless, Fainall is soon outwitted and surprised:

"What's here? Damnation! [Reads] 'A deed of conveyance of the whole estate real of Arabella Languish, widow, in trust to Edward Mirabell'. Confusion”! (Congreve 215). Mirabell answers, "tis the way of the world, sir, the widows of the world.”

Mirabell saves the day. His planning and execution of Waitwell's marriage to Foible has put him in control. Waitwell's disguise as Sir Roland conveys a message: Only a servant can affectively imitate the upper crust without detection.

Although all the plays to some extent depict both the personal world and social world, Congreve does not flaunt the sexual aspects of the situations. The concept he portrays extends more towards exposure of the misrepresentation of the aristocracy by the money elite.

In The Country Wife, the play gives direction and then ends and in The Man of Mode, the play is open- ended, leaving the audience guessing whether Dorimant really changes. However, The Way of the World, issues a warning:

"From hence let those be warned, who mean to wed,

Lest mutual falsehood stain the bridal bed;

For each deceiver to his cost may find,

That marriage frauds too oft are paid in kind" (Congreve 217).

This statement revives noble chivalry with its warning.

Bibliography:

Congreve, William. The Way of the World. The Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Comedy. A Norton Critical Edition. Scott McMillin, editor. W.W. Norton & Company: New York. 1973. 152-217.

Etherege, George. The Man of Mode. The Restoration and Eighteenth- Century Comedy. A Norton Critical Edition. Scott McMillin, editor. W.W. Norton & Company: New York. 1973. 79-151.

Wycherley, William. The Country Wife. The Restoration and Eighteenth-Century Comedy. A Norton Critical Edition. Scott McMillin, editor. W.W. Norton & Company: New York. 1973. 3-78.