Posted on 04/05/2006 8:14:38 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
WASHINGTON - Columnist Art Buchwald is dying and enjoying every minute of it. Death was expected within weeks of his decision to reject blood-cleansing treatments that could prolong his life, yet he lives on. Neither Buchwald nor his doctors know why, he says.
But it doesn't matter. The Pulitzer Prize-winning political satirist says he's not afraid of death, isn't depressed and is, in fact, having the time of his life. He spends his days writing columns from his room at a local hospice and reminiscing with friends from all stages of his storied life who visit daily.
"It's a great way to say goodbye," Buchwald, 80, said in an interview.
In his personal version of "Tuesdays with Morrie," the best-seller about an author's weekly conversations with his terminally ill college professor, Buchwald holds court in the salon of his hospice room with family, celebrities and friends from the worlds of media and politics.
"They sit here and we have group therapy," he said. "We talk about everything."
The French ambassador brought a medal from his country; Buchwald wrote his first columns from Paris, about nightlife in the City of Light. The Marine Corps commandant also visited; Buchwald was a Marine during World War II, dropping out of high school at age 17 and joining the corps underaged.
NBC's Tom Brokaw, Kennedy family members and former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee also have visited, as did some former and current members of Congress. Buchwald's three children and five grandchildren visit several times a day, he said. His wife, Ann, died in 1994.
"I'm going out the way very few people do," Buchwald said in a strong voice.
Vascular problems led doctors to amputate his right leg below the knee in January. Buchwald said losing it was "very traumatic" and that it probably influenced the decision to reject dialysis for his kidney failure. That would have meant being hooked up to a machine three times a week, five hours each time, he said.
"I just decided 'To hell with it,'" said Buchwald, seemingly at peace with his imminent fate. "I haven't been afraid to die. I'd had a wonderful life. I'm 80 years old, so I'm not afraid."
Getting to that point wasn't easy by any means.
"Your loved ones don't like the idea," he said. "Your friends don't like the idea. No one likes the idea, but once I made it, everyone knew it was my choice. They've gone along with it.
"It was purely a decision about 'Did I want to stay around or did I want to go?'" Buchwald said. "It's one of the few things where you have choice."
His choice has caused something of a stir and earned Buchwald some new fans, judging from the hundreds of letters he said he's received since checking in to the hospice Feb. 7. The contents of some of those letters are the subject of Thursday's column, which Tribune Media Services distributes to newspapers including The Washington Post.
As he writes about and discusses his decision with visitors and in interviews, Buchwald said he's finding that "for some reason, people are very interested in someone who didn't take dialysis" and are grateful he's talking about it so openly.
"I don't know what's coming next and neither does anyone else," Buchwald said by telephone. "It's something that we do have to face but the thing is that a lot of people don't want to face it. And there's denial. If somebody says it, like me, everybody feels a little better that they can discuss it."
Buchwald said his humor grew out of a difficult childhood in his native New York.
The youngest of four children, he and his sisters were sent to foster homes after mental illness claimed their mother. Their father, who sold drapery, couldn't afford them.
Humor was his "salvation," he wrote in "Leaving Home," a 1995 memoir of his early years.
After the war, Buchwald was managing editor of the humor magazine at the University of Southern California and a columnist for the student newspaper. He dropped out in 1948 and went to Paris, where he became a correspondent for Variety and wrote columns for the New York Herald Tribune.
He returned to the U.S. in 1962 and started a career writing columns that made fun of Washington's power brokers and other subjects. At one point, the column appeared in more than 500 newspapers worldwide.
In 1982, Buchwald won journalism's highest honor, a Pulitzer, for outstanding commentary.
Buchwald, who has been public about bouts with depression, said he is anything but depressed these days.
"The thing is, when you make your choice, then a lot of the stress is gone," he said. "Everything is great because you accept that you are the one who made the choice. So I don't get depressed."
He said he enjoys the freedom he now has to eat whatever he wants, and his visitors bring plenty of food. "They think because you're dying you should have food," he said.
When alone and not writing, Buchwald passes time reading newspapers and news magazines and watching television and rented movies. "It's a funny thing, but it's a good life," he said.
Waiting for the end, Buchwald said people shouldn't be too concerned about where they will end up in death. What they should really be asking, he said, is "Why was I here in the first place?"
Why does Buchwald think he's been around for 80-plus years?
"Apparently to make people laugh," he said, "which is as good a reason as any."
Sad that you have to go for the personal attacks. Where are the rules outlined in those passages? The rewards for following the rules are outlined, the punishments for disobeying the rules are outlined, but the rules are not. The rules are elsewhere. Because neither the carrot nor the stick is the definition.
The alternative is that you didn't pay attention. Where in those qoute you provided are the rules spelled out? they mention what happens when you follow or don't folow the rules, but the rules themselves are absent. And that's what I said in the first place, the rules are always spelled out somewhere other than the rewards and punishment.
Drop the personal attacks, it's making you look childish and pathetic, real men can argue with just the facts, that's twice now you you've insulted me for no reason. I've been polite to you, act like a man of principle and be polite, and answer my question: where in those quotes are the rules spelled out?
Most fundamentalists of my acquaintance hold that unless you accept Jesus Christ as your savior and are 'born again' then you're bound for the nether regions. If they're correct the heaven must be like one long episode of the 700 Club.
If THAT is true, that is not a very divine prospect.
Gee, then it's no one's fault. What information didn't I give him? I told him the story , it was only when he realized my ex had died that everytfhing was fine that he changed his tune.
It is the church's fault for having such idiotic and stringent rules.
My mother was widowed at 31 yrs. old and brought us up with a strong Catholic background, at 41 yrs. of age she found a wonderful men, who was a prince among men. He unfortunately had married his first wife in the church ( he was not Catholic) My poor mother who was the most fervent Catholic, was not allowed to marry in the church. It crushed her. They got married by a Justice of the Peace.My mother until the day she died ,attended Sunday Mass but couldn't go to communion. Now tell me that God thinks this is right?
I don't attend the Catholic church anymore, which is a shame seeing as I was educated through college by the church. I believe that religion is a personal matter and I'm quite satisfied that I've earned a good place in death. You are obviously a devout Catholic, but I believe that most devout Catholics believe the parts they agree with and tend to disregard the stuff that they don't. I may be wrong.
The way you posted it originally, you told him PART of the story; he said he could not marry you because you were divorced, THEN you said, "At the end of the conversation I casually mentioned that my ex was deceased."
That kind of changes everything, so you did not give him all of the information before he made his decision. I'm not saying I agree with the rules, I'm just saying those are their rules.
I'm afraid it's your fault for not telling him the entire story. There are plenty of situations (not just in the church - see it in the law all the time) when one little fact will change the WHOLE thing. This is one of them. You can't blame the priest if you omit a crucial piece of information and then just "casually mention" it after he's already given you a ruling on the basis of the facts he had. (Lawyers hate it when clients do this to them. Sometimes that little crucial fact comes out on the witness stand. Lawyers REALLY hate that.)
And the fact that one of the parties is dead is dispositive of the issue of remarriage in a civil context as well (you can't get divorced if one party is already dead.)
I am sorry your mother had to experience that unhappiness. Did they seek an annulment? Often people don't even consider that route. The rules have become less strict in recent years, but it has always been a pretty good argument that a marriage between a Catholic and a non-Catholic did not evince the necessary intent to form a full and Catholic marriage.
That rule is neither idiotic nor stringent, if you take seriously Christ's words "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder." The issue is whether God actually joined the parties together (i.e. whether the marriage was truly Catholic.)
Since I've been married forever (even though we were married in an Episcopal Church) the issue of divorce, remarriage and annulments doesn't touch me personally. But I subscribe to ALL the Church's teachings, even the ones that hit me where I live (we went all round Robin Hood's barn on the issue of birth control and S-E-X, for example -- coming from an "anything goes" denomination like ECUSA. But everything worked out o.k.)
I will reiterate that the alternative to the "idiotic and stringent rules" is a madhouse like the Episcopal Church. The rules do sting when they hit you where you live . . . but if there are no rules and you can do whatever you like, pretty soon people in the church are doing things that you DON'T like . . . like consecrating as bishop a man who left his wife and two daughters to live in a homosexual relationship with a man . . . after all, he REALLY loves his 'partner', and who are we to enforce those "idiotic and stringent rules"?
Thanks, I'll do my best to obey the church's rules. At least this church HAS some.
"He did not bother with denominations - he went straight to God's word - the Bible and followed what he was told. So simple - yet man makes it so hard because he checks to see what his known religious people tell him and many times does not check to see what God tells him in the Bible."
If you are not Catholic, the Catholic religion believes you will go to hell. Even if you are a Christian. You must be a Christian AND a Catholic, or no heaven for you. As it appears you are not Catholic, that means you will end up in the same hell as Art might be in. Good thing he tells funny jokes so you'll be entertained.
"Interesting. How "decent" do you have to be? What's the passing score to stay out of that "eternal damnation" that you mention?"
God will know this when he passes judgment at death. It's for God to judge, not man.
I read his column while I was growing up in the 60's. He provided great amusement even to a child and teen. Thanks, Art.
It does not matter to me what the Catholics think - it matters what God thinks. I would assume the way to please God would be to read His Word and try and follow those instructions.
It does not matter what a church creed says I need to do - it matters what God says I need to do.
And, my discussions in no way were regarding where Art will spend eternity. We were discussing beliefs - not individuals.
It does not matter to me what the Catholics think - it matters what God thinks.
Just pointing out to you that a great number of people on this earth believe you will be rotting in hell because you aren't of their religion. So, as you condemn others to hell, so will they condemn you to the same place. Whose right about those that will end up in hell, and based on what criteria, pray tell?
I'm not condemning anyone to hell. We were just discussing eternity. In fact, I am unclear exactly what triggered your comments. A day or two and posting on different subjects gets one a bit confused.
I think my point was that man needs to realize that each man does not tell God what God must do. It is the other way around.
God created the world and God will give us instruction about eternity. I believe we go to the Bible and learn what we are told there. Others may follow man's creeds, different denominations, etc.
So many religions have evolved with man changing, adding additional creeds to follow and picking and choosing what he will believe, that we now have many versions of belief.
Rather than going back to the oldest, truest instructions from God, many of us just shop around and treat our faith like we - we - are the ones determining what will be eternity.
In reality, we need to seek what God told us and do our best to follow that. All of the idols, creeds, pompous choices of man as to what he will believe are binding on no one - no even the man dreaming up his "true belief".
So, to do that - I verify what my church tells me with what the Bible says because the Bible is God's inspired word. Any creed, denomination or traditional is generated by man and subject to all of man's understanding and then his prejudices re what is significant and what is ignored.
Yes but on which standard will God judge? How would you like to be judged on something and have no idea what criteria is being used? And your life depended on it.
I don't think God works like that. He gives us the standard and the criteria. He gives us the Way to Heaven so we don't have to guess.
"If you are not Catholic, the Catholic religion believes you will go to hell."
You must not have gotten the JP2 update a few years ago, where he said that the Jews had their own covenant with God. (Oh, and it predates yours). :)
Wow three out of 4 posts with insults, and not one single attempt to answer the question. Might as well just admit you're wrong because that's functionally what you did, only people who know they're wrong but aren't man enough to admit it need to use insults.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.