Yesterday, on The Guardian's website, I was acquainted with quotes from a number of hot-headed right-wing Americans (link appreciated).
It contained a badly written letter by a hot-head (using very rude words) complaining against England, Ireland/Scotland and I think also France for "intervening (interfering? Can't remember well) with American business".
Now, as for the "we beat the s**t outta you in 1776 and 1812" claim, I can only say that the victory was in 1783, not 1776, and if it weren't for France the Americans would still be pursecuted Catholics (by the same token as "if it weren't for us you'd still be speaking German"; totally out of proportion).
Any comments or traces of the link?
Jonny
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Hmmmm....Try JohnKerry.com. (sorry couldn't resist)
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I doubt it has much to do with John Kerry.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Why is it Ireland/Scotland? Huh? And what did we ever do?
We let the american planes going off to Iraq land in Ireland for refueling, and this is the thanks we get?
[ October 25, 2004, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
I'm just trying to understand the purpose of the original post. Asking on the Hatrack forum about an article on a website he already knows....
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I found the link.
Quotes from more pleasant people are:
quote: Dear wonderful, loving friends from abroad, We Ohioans are an ornery sort and don't take meddling well, even if it comes from people we admire and with their sincere goodwill. We are a fairly closed community overall. In my town of Springfield, I feel that there are some that consider people from the nearby cities of Columbus or Dayton, as "foreigners"- let alone someone from outside our country.
As well as:
quote: Right on! Just wanted to say thanks from California for your effort and concern. This IS a very important election ... There are so many people here in the States that care about the impact America has on the rest of the world. I am personally saddened for the loss of all innocent lives. The best statement Americans can make to the rest of the world is to not elect Bush for president. Thank you so much for getting involved in our world.
Even:
quote: I am a student and life-long resident of Clark County, Ohio. I just wanted you to know that this is a wonderful idea you've initiated; people here love and respect the United Kingdom, especially the prime minister. I hope this campaign will be successful for your newspaper and for us voters.
Respect for the United Kingdom? Well, look at this:
quote: KEEP YOUR ****IN' LIMEY HANDS OFF OUR ELECTION. HEY, SHITHEADS, REMEMBER THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR? REMEMBER THE WAR OF 1812? WE DIDN'T WANT YOU, OR YOUR POLITICS HERE, THAT'S WHY WE KICKED YOUR ASSES OUT. FOR THE 47% OF YOU WHO DON'T WANT PRESIDENT BUSH, I SAY THIS ... TOUGH SHIT!
Here's another one:
quote: Hey England, Scotland and Wales, Mind your own business. We don't need weenie-spined Limeys meddling in our presidental election. If it wasn't for America, you'd all be speaking German. And if America would have had a president, then, of the likes of Kerry, you'd all be goose-stepping around Buckingham Palace. YOU ARE NOT WANTED!! Whether you want to support either party. BUTT OUT!!!
Sorry if I confused you with France. But let's see, who had the most powerful fleet in the world during WWI and WWII alike? Britain. Who was reluctant to go to war? The USA. Who supported the Americans during the war wit Japan? The UK. By the same token (sorry for changing the old claim), if it weren't for the UK, the USA would be speaking Japanese (not quite, but by the same token).
quote: As I recall we kicked your asses out of our country back in 1776.
Well, kindly try to recall better. The victory was only in 1783, it was not a rout or a crush of the English, but rather a tough fight; and even with France's support, you didn't do it so easily there in the Puritan States. England DID have an army and it DID give the 13 Colonies trouble. No-one kickd no-one's arse.
My conclusion is this, to the hot-minded ones rather than the cool-minded, rational feedbackers:
Try to know what you're writing about without too many contradictions when you're on the web, on a website like The Guardian. And please, please, don't make fools out of yourselves.
Or as one person said it well:
quote: Dear British friends, I think you have an interesting idea to encourage international grassroots efforts, but I sincerely doubt most Springfielders are going to be influenced by letters from a country they probably can't even point to on a map. I wish you luck with your campaign, but I warn you that you're not likely to accomplish much.
The purpose? I'm just trying to get more opinions about it, aside mine.
I have nothing against either Ireland or Scotland (and let's keep Northern Ireland out of it), but the message, one of them, was to Scotland and Wales (sorry, but at the time I didn't fully remember). Jonny
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The Guardian's desire to get US voters to vote for Kerry will be as useful as Vladimir--Lets Buy Off This Democracy And Then Go Back To a Dictatorship--Putin's endorsement of George W. Bush will convince people to vote for President Bush.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The issue here is that a number of Europeans have taken it upon themselves -- at the Guardian's rather foolish (IMO) request -- to write to undecided voters in swing states and ask them to vote for John Kerry, on the grounds that these undecided voters must not know -- and should care -- how much the rest of the world hates George Bush and fears (and fears for) America while he remains in office.
The problem is that most people who would already care about this are already Kerry voters. I suspect Europeans overestimate the number of Americans who actually care what Europeans think; they don't have much experience with our particular kind of insular bravado. So, as you can see from some of the responses, they risk pissing off exactly the sort of ignorant people who would look at this kind of campaign as "meddling."
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Well we already know the Guardian is slanted...
I smell fishing....
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be fair, I wouldn't say the Guardian is "slanted" in the same way that we use the term in America.
To the Brits, America's moderates are erratically and even unnervingly right-wing -- and the Brits are among the more conservative people in Europe. To them, what's happening in America -- the steady growth in power of a slim right-wing majority that seems determined to make the country even more militarily aggressive and socially conservative -- is so far outside their comprehension that the mainstream European press regards that movement as dangerous in the extreme, particularly when coupled with the attitude of disdain that many American conservatives have expressed towards Europe in recent years. No one likes to think that a powerful country gearing up for lots of wars is being led by people who actively dislike you.
Now, Europe's dealt with this before; there have been a number of cases where fascist, isolationist, and even openly neo-Nazi governments managed to win control of a country (something that's made easier by their political systems, which give extra power to fringe parties). In those cases, the countries of Europe have found that expressing concerted disapproval generally worked (from their POV, at least) to get the citizens of those countries to change their minds.
So here they see a powerful country sliding in what is, from their position, a dangerously right-wing direction -- and, as they did with Austria and others, they're letting us know that they think we're being irresponsible.
*shrug*
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I'm not a great British magazine reader, but the Guardian did go overboard.
Why would people want choices to be made for them? Whether the top political analysts in Washington DC or the 'rednecks' living in midland states, why would they want European influence?
Now, I do have a lot against the attempt to try and use 200 y.o. wrong history to claim otherwise; but really, why would a person want influence? Much of it was reflected there.
I'm personlly against Bush 100%, but others who vote for him have the absolute right; even though I think it's wrong. Again, I can't vote so what does it matter?
Jonny
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
To Kerry and others, your opinion on America matters a great deal. To others, less so.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Why would people want choices to be made for them?
I'm pretty sure the Guardian readers were not trying to cast votes. They seem to have been, as Tom said, expressing their opinions under the assumption that voters in the US would be interested [and appreciative].
I don't think it's an attempt to influence as an attempt to inform. But yes, misguided -- mostly because I have yet to come to the conclusion that the average US citizen is much interested in pretty much anything outside our country's borders.
[ October 25, 2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
And can you blame the average US citizen for that?
A giant (in area), widspread country. It has 'everything', why would the average man need more than his farm, town and family?
Jonny
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Jon, even ignoring the bit about the farm--I mean, how many Americans still live on the farm?--in this day and age of international economics, your question is kind of odd.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
As I understand it, the mailings were targeting registered independants in Clark County, OH ("swing state") to persuade them to vote.
I can understand people discarding the letters as a "nuisance", but sending back letters ranting about limeys trying to take-over the election seem pretty silly to me.....
[ October 25, 2004, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I'm not really blaming anybody, just acknowledging the way things are, Jonathon. If it reads as a condemnation, I should rewrite it. I was trying very hard to be noncomittal; i.e., refraining from judging that this characteristic can never change or that it should change.
Welcome to Hatrack, by the way. Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
OK, even though that does include 'modern-style' farms.
Still, your average US citizen (hate the 'average' term), in a small town or a big city. Unless working in an international stock market, or a tourist site, would probably not need much from the outside world. Whether a barber, a butcher, a salesman or any other job - most won't require too much of an external influence. The melting pot woked in the long run.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
1. Didn't we already have this discussion?
2. I thought that America lost the war of 1812...?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote: Unless working in an international stock market, or a tourist site, would probably not need much from the outside world. Whether a barber, a butcher, a salesman or any other job - most won't require too much of an external influence.
Hmmm. This may well be at the heart of our difference in perspective.
My morality calls me to task not for what I need but for what the consequences of my actions are, regardless of whether I need anything from those I may affect.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
1. Wherabout? (Oh, wait... Right!)
2. The French lost. That was, however, only a related war and I think the British retreated; it was all around a misunderstanding (like the 1898 war, except that might have been deliberate).
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Ah. Wasn't 1812 when the States invaded Canada, had the White House burned down in retaliation, and eventually resulted in the Treaty of Ghent being signed, thus returning the territorial control essentially to what it had been before the States invaded?
I think that was a successful rebuff of an intended advancement, so I'd pretty much consider it a loss for the invaders.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
As far as I remember, it was with the British invading the USA following some 'misunderstanding' (conceptualisation), and the Cheroke were allied with England. Do I really need to say the Cherokee's consequences? I think the British retreated.
[Then again, I only saw a TV show about the Cherokee in 1812 and read in an awful '100 wars that changed the world' book (doesn't even deserve capitals)(so partial, that every single Israeli war was inserted).]
That;s to my knowledge.
Jonny
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
1. These comments were already posted and its not much of a wonder that The Guardian is going to present the most extreme comments in order to portray America as it seems fit.
2. The War of 1812 was essentially a draw. The US gained no concessions from the UK and there were no soldiers occupying the US. The US did for the first time did win desicive naval battles on the Great Lakes and the Atlantic. The US under the command of Andrew Jacksonvalso crushed British forces at the Battle of New Orleans after the war was actually over.
quote: Sorry if I confused you with France. But let's see, who had the most powerful fleet in the world during WWI and WWII alike? Britain. Who was reluctant to go to war? The USA. Who supported the Americans during the war wit Japan? The UK. By the same token (sorry for changing the old claim), if it weren't for the UK, the USA would be speaking Japanese (not quite, but by the same token).
During WWII the US had the far superiour fleet, the UK barely had a naval presence outside of the Atlantic and with the sinking of the Bismark, almost all the major naval action of WWII was in the Pacific. Since Japan was invading English possesions in the Pacific I should hope that they would get involved not that they did much even then. In the Pacific theater it was almost entirely the US Marines and US Navy vs the Empire of Japan.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I can't find the reference, but I believe the British had also not abandoned territory in accordance with the treaty to end the Revolution. They certainly started the aggression by kidnapping American sailors and siezing ships - basically piracy.
So while the invasion of Canada was a failure, the U.S. did end British manipulation of the Indian tribes and interference with U.S. commerce on the high seas.
Dagonee
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
So, Mr. Howard, how do you define a redneck?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, Mr. Howard, how do you define a redneck?
Apparently is defined by his phrase "midland states"... so it's "geography" tied.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Wow, caught my logic.
Please note I used it as 'rednecks', not rednecks.
ven though it IS regarded as offensive slang, I'd generally regard it as a rural, white Amrican, not necesserily educated or uneducated, but mainly a modern American-style of the classic Europan 'peasant'. The ones referred to as the "people of the land".
Please not I wasn't using this as an insult, just as the classic opposite of the Harvard/Priceton graduate who's working in the Pentagon or something. No offence intended.
quote: a modern American-style of the classic Europan 'peasant'.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Sorry for the bad English, but it's late here and I have school tomorrow.
Good night.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Johnathon, as you age, you might find more wisdom and intelligence in some you'd call rednecks than your Princeton and Yale grads.
You might be surprised by the number of truly remarkable folks with a more bucolic upringing.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: with a more bucolic upringing.
I think you mean "bubonic" like in they're peasants and have to deal with the plague, etc.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Man, you really are a troll.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If anybody has good enough tatste to enjoy bluegrass or old tyme music, then they get to be labeled a redneck.
Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Dang, I think I might just be a redneck... Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
My understanding (drawing heavily from Lewis Grizzard, the famous academic historian ) is that rednecks were initially those who had red necks from working the fields themselves in honest labor, rather than gathering the fruits of others as, say, a plantation owner did.
It is an honorable heritage.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Man, you really are a troll.
A redneck troll? Maybe a new species. Posted by Lost Ashes (Member # 6745) on :
Gotta love a woman who knows of Brother Lewis.
I still get choked up that he's not with us anymore. Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Yeah. So much death in life -- seems especially sharp recently.
Grizzard was one of a kind.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Grizzard was great. His book on his near-death experience after heart valve replacement surgery was excellent, as was his more humorous stuff.
"Anyone who uses sugar when making cornbread does not love the Lord or SEC football."
Of course, I like sugar in my cornbread, but I'm an ACC fan myself.
Dagonee
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I like sugar-in-the-form-of-honey on my cornbread. God meant honey and butter to be melted together on the golden loaves of corn. Amen.
I've had two open-heart surgeries for valve replacement, and I felt a close connection with Grizzard after reading about his.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And you don't even like SEC football.
[ October 25, 2004, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Were I to understand it, I think I would like it. But it is like I live in another dimension. I'm a flatlander in a world of ripe apples.
(Go Hoos? *hopefully)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes. We had a big disappointment agains Florida State, but we bounced back well against Duke.
As long as we beat the Hokies, the season won't be a total loss.
Dagonee
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Hey! That's just what I was going to say, too.
*punches Dag in the shoulder
Heh, heh. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
What a strange thread in which to be discussing college football.
(Go Utes! #6 in the BCS, Baby!)
[ October 25, 2004, 08:06 PM: Message edited by: UofUlawguy ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I was going to post specific news articles about what happened with the Guardian's campaign and the American reaction to it, but instead, I'll link to a page of news articles about it.
But first...
TomDavidson wrote,
quote:they risk pissing off exactly the sort of ignorant people who would look at this kind of campaign as "meddling."
I looked at that kind of campaign as meddling, it pissed me off, and I'm NOT ignorant. If I had received a letter like that I would have been appalled at the audacity of it, but it wouldn't have swayed me either way. However, I wasn't worried. I knew the only result it COULD have was the opposite of what was intended, if any result at all.
I know what the world thinks of Bush, I know what the other half of this country thinks of Bush. But I still have my OWN opinion, and the majority doesn't automatically mean right to me.
-Katarain
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Personally it offends me that someone from another country would dare to tell me who I should vote for for my elected official. It would also bother that my address is being posted for all to see. I get enough junk mail as it is.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
quote: Johnathon, as you age, you might find more wisdom and intelligence in some you'd call rednecks than your Princeton and Yale grads.
I never said the rednecks are/n't wise, I just said they are classicly the opposite of the Princton grads. That never reflected wisdom; and today it's different, anyway.
Jonny
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I don't see how you can call the war of 1812 a draw. The war started over the Brit's blockade of trade (France had recently recinded a similar policy) as well as the Brit's practice of impressment. Once peaceful means failed (an unsuccessful American trade embargo) war broke out.
The Americans planned on conquering Canada but failed utterly (well, they torched York, but didn't succeed in holding any territory). The Brits planned on gaining large American territory in a peace treaty but were successfully beaten back.
In the end, many died and a treaty was signed that changed none of the reasons for starting the war. The blockade was still in effect and impressment wasn't stopped. [Edit: nor did the British withdraw from the great lakes region, a tertiary reason for the war.] Considering these were the reasons the US declared war against the British I'd say the war was a failure. Not to discount the impressive victories on the part of the US, but just because you didn't lose the land you started with doesn't mean you won the war. Nor even "tied", the British got to keep everything America wanted to see changed.
[ October 26, 2004, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Personally it offends me that someone from another country would dare to tell me who I should vote for for my elected official."
Yes. I expect many Bush voters would be offended by that.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I still love what Lewis Grizzard said after he'd had a heart valve replaced by one from a pig.
"I get a tear in my eye everytime I eat barbecue now."
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I'm quite taken by the equation of "offering their opinions of the situation" with "telling me what to do."
For one to necessarily be interpreted as the other is an interesting perspective.
[Sopwith: . I ducked the pig valve (I have a cadaver valve and a metal/plastic conduit), so Tom's pulled pork causes no secretion of my bodily fluids other than drool.]
[ October 26, 2004, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
As an adolescent (far too primitive), I have NO IDEA what you just said:
quote: Sopwith: [Wink] . I ducked the pig valve (I have a cadaver valve and a metal/plastic conduit), so Tom's pulled pork causes no secretion of my bodily fluids other than drool.]
But, it is my precise style of punctuation inside brackets! (That is, when I remember what's my official style, since it's a trifle over-versatile.)
If this remark is weird, remember I'm the son of an English teacher; please have empathy.
Jonny
P.S. What're the current affairs in the US following the debates? Any other major stuff?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm quite taken by the equation of "offering their opinions of the situation" with "telling me what to do."
For one to necessarily be interpreted as the other is an interesting perspective.
Funny, unsolicited advice about which religion is valid or whether unmarried people should have sex is often equated with "telling me what to do" by the listener.
Dagonee
[ October 26, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Yeah, that is interesting too, isn't it?
I'm more likely to give weight to the "opinion equates with 'telling me what to do'" theory when it is in the context of legislative history, though. When the people giving you their opinion are actively influencing your life through legislation, it has a different context.
I do see what you mean, however.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
(Jonathon: )
It used to be that most replacement heart valves were either transplanted from pigs or were created artificially. Pig valves need to be replaced every 5-7 years and artificial valves -- although they last practically for the rest of one's life -- require one to be on blood thinners.
I have, instead, a heart valve donated by the family of a young man who died in a car accident. This is accompanied by some metalware and other parts, but I don't have to be on blood thinners.
So, unlike Lewis Grizzard, I haven't any pig parts in me, and thus I can eat barbeque with impunity, aside from the same moral issues that might arise for anyone. Tom and Christy make a delicious shredded pork dish (although yes, there is another connotation to "pulled pork," as I now recognize to my great chagrin ), so I can enjoy drooling over that without shedding any tears for my compatriot pig race.
[ October 26, 2004, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'll re-ask the question I asked there. I have a friend running for Congress in New York. I can't vote for her, but I think that she'd do a very good job in Congress. So, I emailed the people that I know who could vote for her with why I think she'd do a good job and a link to her campaign website. I also asked them, if they liked my email, to send it to other people in that congressional district.
Are my actions offensive? If not, how are they different from what the Brits are doing?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:how are they different from what the Brits are doing?
Because of this portion of your post: "I emailed the people that I know."
Presumably you also knew they would be receptive to your opinion on the subject.
Dagonee
[ October 26, 2004, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: So, I emailed the people that I know who could vote for her
The emphasis I added illustrates one big difference.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Let me rephrase it. I emailed people I had email addresses for, some of whom I've never met in real life.
[ October 26, 2004, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then you're a spammer, and deserve to die. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Hey, I'm in PA. I've gotten a metic ton of unsolicted political material in the past week alone and have stopped answering the phone altogether, and none of the stuff I've been exposed to respects my intelligence or has any discernable quality (apparently voting for John Kerry will make my breasts at least two cup sizes bigger) at all. I sent an easily discarded sequence of bits that, I think, makes a clear, rational case for someone that I also think people could really get behind. If I deserve to die, the RNC and DNC deserve to be eaten to death by fire ants.
And that's kind of irrelevant to my point, which is that people don't have the outrage response to what I did nor thought that I was being incredibly condescending.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You asked what the difference was. I answered. I think outrage is wildly misplaced here.
But amusement at their expectation that they could have any positive result by doing this is well earned.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Sorry, I meant difference with respect to the outrage. I'm also somewhat amused by them assuming that there would be a positive result of this, although it also makes me more than a little sad.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I'm still in the hog issues.
I never heard of pigs' hearts' transplants, maybe because I study in a religious school. (Damn! Philosophical studies have a price.)
I thought Chimpanzees are more similar to humans than pigs, anything I missed in Biology lessons?
Jonny
P.S. "You deserve to die", I'd go for imprisonment.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Surgery to replace the leaking valve, and sometimes to repair the aorta, can lead to longer life with fewer symptoms for some people with aortic regurgitation. The risk of death from the surgery is 2% to 8%.
Two types of artificial heart valves are available: mechanical and bioprosthetic.
Mechanical valve replacements work well, but require lifelong blood-thinner medicine to keep blood clots from forming in the bloodstream. These drugs cause a small increase in the risk of bleeding. This is most serious when it causes bleeding in the brain. Follow-up care requires frequent visits to a doctor.
Bioprosthetic valves are either specially treated pig valves or valves made from other body tissue. They do not require long-term blood thinners but breakdown more often.
Surgery to replace the aortic valve at the proper time can improve both the quality and the length of life.
[italicization added by me]
Pig valves are cheap and readily available. Human cadaver valves are more limited in number but are becoming the treatment of choice where available. Mechanical valves are still an excellent alternative in the right circumstances, especially for young males (long life expectancy without any issues of maintaining a pregnancy while on blood thinners).
I have a valve transplant, not a whole heart transplant. Transplanted hearts are from fresh human cadaver donors. Full organ xenotransplants (from other animals to humans) have not been successful, although pig full heart transplants have been attempted in the past (from chimp Bino to human Boyd Rush in 1964, but the heart only pumped for minutes to hours, which has been the consistent response) and are still under research. There was also the famous case of a baboon heart transplant into "Baby Fae" in 1984, but she only lived for 3 weeks.
Needless to say, there are many ethical issues involving xenografts.
[ October 26, 2004, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Sorry for the valve/heart mistake.
I do know a heart surgent, old neighbour of mine; if I ever get into deper biological trouble I'll refer to him.
Thanks for the information, though!
Jonny
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Stay in good health! I intend to do so as well. Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
"Anything happy in life is either illegal, immoral or fattening." - Murphy
Does that count?
I do, however, maintain average shape. Neither scrawny nor obese.
I wish you a healthy heart and life, as for the rest of Earth's population of various animals. (Aside from those annoying Middle-Eastern insects, I hope they stay away from me!)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
(sorry couldn't resist)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) is that rednecks were initially those who had red necks from working the fields themselves in honest labor, rather than gathering the fruits of others as, say, a plantation owner did.![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
), so I can enjoy drooling over that without shedding any tears for my compatriot pig race.![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)