To: Jeb, W., Tom Delay, Bill Frist, and all the other elected representatives in Washington and Florida:
Do whatever it takes -- within the law -- to keep this woman from being snuffed out by the state over the objections of her parents. If it's humanly possible -- within the law -- save her life! Pull out all the stops and find a way to make it happen...
Allowing Terri Schiavo to be starved when there are serious, unanswered questions about whether she's in a persistent vegetative state or not is a monstrous, unhuman act directly comparable to the euthanasia in the "Baby Knauer" case in Nazi Germany.
Furthermore, I realize I'm violating Godwin's law here, but after watching the reaction to this case, the skewed polls, the deliberate withholding of crucial information from the public by the MSM, the dry legal arguments for erring on the side of death, & the dogged determination of some individuals to see a woman die in order to obtain what they believe is a political victory, I can honestly tell you that I believe I have a better understanding of the mentality that made death camps like Treblinka possible.
"Meanwhile, FBI agents have arrested a North Carolina man on suspicion of soliciting offers over the internet to kill Michael Schiavo and Greer. Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview is accused of offering $250,000 for the killing of Schiavo and another $50,000 for the "the elimination of the judge who ruled against Terry."
Meywes was arrested without incident at his home around 5 p.m. Friday on charges of solicitation of murder and transmission of a threatening communication via interstate commerce, authorities said.
If convicted, Meywes could face up to 15 years in prison and up to $500,000 in fines. He is expected to make an initial court appearance Monday in U.S. District Court in Asheville, North Carolina. (Full story)
Greer has been under 24-hour protection by two U.S. marshals due to increased threats against his life by those unhappy with his handling of the Schiavo case.
On Thursday, police arrested an Illinois man they said robbed a gun store in Seminole, Florida, as part of an attempt to "rescue Terri Schiavo."
Michael W. Mitchell, 20, faces charges of attempted armed robbery, aggravated assault and criminal mischief, said Marianne Pasha, spokeswoman for the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office."
What is being done to Terri Schiavo is not a problem that can be fixed by picking up a gun.
You want to do something? Put pressure on the President, Congress, and the legislators in Florida to find a way within the law to save Terri Schiavo's life.
Then, whether Terri lives or dies, take action that can help prevent something like this from ever happening again. Raise hell with Congress and your state legislature to put new laws on the books. Support with your dollars, your time, and your votes the people who fought for Terri. Demand that Congress put judges into office who put a higher priority on the life of a human being than on the life of an endangered snail darter.
That's how a real difference can be made, not by people taking the law into their own hands...
Are Bush's Polling Numbers Dropping Because Of The Schiavo Issue? No.
TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll has engaged in a bit of polling chicanery to try to make it appear as if Bush's poll numbers have dropped because of his handling of the Terri Schiavo tragedy. Here are the numbers:
"President Bush's approval rating has fallen to 45%, the lowest point of his presidency, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.
The new poll found the largest drop for Bush came among men, self-described conservatives and churchgoers.
The finding, in a poll of 1,001 adults Monday through Wednesday, is a dip from 52% in a poll taken last week. Bush's previous lowest rating, 46%, was recorded last May."
The article then goes on to suggest that it's because Bush stood up for Terri Schiavo:
"Independent political analysts said the drop may reflect opposition to the White House and Congress intervening in the Terri Schiavo matter.
"You have to wonder if people didn't feel that the president and the Congress couldn't be spending their time working on Social Security and other problems," said Charlie Cook, editor of the non-partisan Cook Political Report."
But, if you keep reading you find out the real cause of the dip:
"The poll also found an increased number of Democrats. In this survey, 37% said they were Democrats and 32% said they were Republicans. Last week, 32% said they were Democrats and 35% said they were Republicans."
So Bush's numbers dropped 7% in a week. However, there were 5% more Democrats polled and 3% less Republicans. Had they used the same percentages as the week before, it's entirely possible Bush's polling numbers would have gone up just a bit.
It's also hardly a surprise that "the largest drop for Bush came among men, self-described conservatives and churchgoers" since all those groups tilt Republican and significantly less Republicans were polled.
Answer: Although nothing good will come out of having the FEC regulating blogs, for the moment at least, it looks as if the danger is minimal.
The biggest advantage that bloggers have right now should be the First Amendment, but both parties in Washington and the court system have treated McCain-Feingold as if it trumps the Constitution. But luckily, both parties in Washington have benefitted from blogs. Conservative bloggers have taken on the MSM which is biased against Republicans and Democratic bloggers, like the Daily Kos, have raised large amounts of money for the Dems. So neither Party currently sees an advantage in stifling blogs.
However, once the FEC gets into the business of regulating blogs, they're not going to go backwards. They're only going to pile on more regulations over time. Furthermore, as blogs become more influential and take a bigger bite of the revenue stream and audiences of the mainstream media, we'll see more instances of MSM trying to use their influence to get the government to hinder the competition. Then there are the politicians themselves who may start to push back as more of them are taken down in blogstorms, defeated in primaries, and are forced to face opponents whose war chests are filled by blogosphere driven fund raising.
What has happened is likely the first step down a slippery slope, but it looks like we're going be OK for a while...
Question: "You're very keen on the idea of a flat tax. Would you support such a tax if it was implemented with the understanding that there was a minimum income cutoff, or floor, and that no one making below a certain amount of money would have to pay this flat rate? Do you think we would still be able to draw in enough revenue if that cutoff existed?" -- Schroman2002
Answer: Sure, a flat tax with a minimum income cutoff would be fine with me. As to whether we could get enough revenue, well, you can't get blood out of a turnip. Percentage wise, how much money can we raise from the poorest among us anyway? Not very much, which is why they don't pay a lot of income tax as it is.
A flat tax would allow us to keep attracting foreign investment and industry, to create jobs, and to guarantee that our economy stays strong and competitive long-term. It would also help keep taxes under control and low, stifle the growth of government, and it would make filling out taxes every April 15th a breeze.
There are few things that they could do in Washington that would have a greater positive impact on our country over the long haul than implementing a flat tax...
Question: (Via Email) "I am a very conservative student at Penn State University. I've completely lost hope in the Republican Party as of late and am trying to steer the right-wing 'Young Americans for Freedom' club here on campus to take a more activist stance on many campus and national political issues.
The only problem is, many of the YAF members have become indoctrinated by the Republican leadership and have adopted their propensity to sell-out on many critical issues (eg. Fiscal Responsibility, Immigration, Federalism, etc). This causes the students to avoid opposing ludicrous liberal programs for fear of being seen as 'extremist' or hurting the Republican agenda.
How do I, as a young conservative, stop this transformation of good conservatives into compliant ideologues of the GOP that do not stand for much of anything outside of war and tax cuts? Many young conservatives see this happening, but we feel powerless to change things. Do I keep trying in vain to change the GOP? Or do I bolt to the Libertarians or Constitutionalists with the other true conservatives and let the GOP lose to the radical Democrats?
What do you think? I'd appreciate your input... it'd be interesting." -- RepublicanPig1
Answer: Here's what you gotta consider: college age Republicans tend to have a skewed perspective. Most of them just got interested in politics and they don't necessarily have a strong understanding of a lot of the ideological underpinnings of conservatism. Furthermore, college campuses on the whole tend to be much more liberal than the general population. So while liberal activism may have the tacit approval of the faculty and administration, conservatives aren't going to get the same support. So in general (There are exceptions of course), young conservatives tend to be less "out there" about their beliefs in college than young liberals.
If you want to help get your club more involved, work to get them more exposure to conservatism. Try to get some conservative speakers on campus. Do your best to talk them into getting involved in political campaigns or to work at the local Republican Headquarters. Convince them to read books like Radical Son or The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation As a Basis for Social Policy. Most college conservatives are like diamonds in the rough. They don't start out as Rush Limbaugh clones or Thomas Sowell, Jrs.; they become that way over time with experience and exposure to conservatism.
As far as the "Libertarians or Constitutionalists" go, the action is in the GOP, not in the tiny third parties that are on the margins of politics and will probably remain there. Even if you make an impact in one of the third parties, what have you accomplished? Nothing. You're better off sticking with the GOP and trying to make changes from inside the system.
*** Update #1 ***: There was a very small rewrite made at the end of this post.
So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV.
Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them. My posts will probably be a little shorter than usual, but expect more posts than normal from me.
So ask away!
PS: Given that I've devoted a lot of time to the Terri Schiavo story this week, actually a bit more than I've intended, I'm not going to answer any questions related to her tomorrow I'm not going to spend a lot of time on questions related to the case.
Question:"Why do the democrats keep looking at Social Security as if it exists in a vacuum? They claim it will remain solvent until 20XX and are totally ignoring other factors, such as ERISA, the shrinking pool of SS contributors vs. drawers, and the fact that the US economy may devalue as other world economies rise." -- alemus
Answer: They know what the score is; they're just playing dumb. Heck, Bill Clinton was talking about the Social Security Crisis all through 1998 when he said things like this:
"[I]f you don’t do anything, one of two things will happen. Either (Social Security) will go broke and you won’t ever get it, or if we wait too long to fix it, the burden on society … of taking care of our generation’s Social Security obligations will lower your income and lower your ability to take care of your children to a degree that most of us who are your parents think would be horribly wrong and unfair to you and unfair to the future prospects of the United States.”
So why don't the Dems up on the Hill want to acknowledge there is a problem? It's politics pure and simple.
#1) They don't want Bush to get credit for "fixing" Social Security.
#2) They're particularly frightened of private accounts, because "in 2004, people who reported being a member of the 'investor class,' regardless of the size of their portfolio, voted for Mr. Bush by a 61-39 percent margin." People who invest money, even if it's a small amount, tend to vote Republican.
#3) The Dems are hoping to use the Social Security as a bludgeon to beat the GOP with in 2006. You know: "The Republicans wanted to take away your Social Security and make you eat dogfood, but we stopped them! Vote for us!" Same propaganda, different day.
Q&A Friday #13: Should A Person In A PVS Be Allowed To Die If That Was Their Wish?
Question:"I know you want to stay away form the Schiavo case, but I'd like a more central and generalizable issue addressed: If someone really is in a PVS, and their wish not to continue on as such was explicit and not a matter of debate, should that person be allowed to die?" -- brs04wsc
Answer: Yes, if their wishes were made clear, they should be allowed to die. Moreover, it's my opinion that if someone is in a Persistent Vegetative State -- and unlike in the Schiavo case, there's no controversy over the diagnosis -- then I have no problem with a relative choosing to pull the plug or the feeding tube. I would even go so far as to say that the State should be allowed to say, "If there's a guardian who'd like to pay for continued treatment, fine. But, we're not going to continue to pick up the tab given that there's no hope of recovery."
Of course, none of these elements are present in the Schiavo case where Terri's wishes can't be ascertained, there isn't certainty about the PVS diagnosis, and there are parents willing to pick up the tab.
Answer: I thought the congressional hearings were ridiculous. It was just an opportunity for a bunch of grandstanding Senators to try to get the attention of the press.
"Oooh, look at me, I'm asking a tough question to Mark McGwire. Wow, CNN got a pic of me and Curt Schilling in the same shot!"
That being said , it's obvious that MLB isn't serious about this issue. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that an extra 20 pounds of muscle may mean the difference between making chicken scratch in AAA and making millions in the bigs. Yet, baseball obviously hasn't been serious about keeping steroids out of the game. In truth they probably don't want to know.
More muscles ='s home runs ='s more interest in the game ='s more money.
Of course, it also means that a lot of records now should have steroid related asterisks beside of them -- including those held by Barry Bonds.
But that's a problem that major league baseball needs to grapple with and also an issue for law enforcement. Congress shouldn't be involved.
Q&A Friday #13: Why Doesn't Bush Use More "Economic Arguments?"
Question:Along with border security/immigration, I think economic issues are the hot potato that Bush won't touch. If his position can be framed as liberal, he'll talk about and even take real and good action - eg social security, but he must pretend to be a fiscal liberal ("we must save social security!")
My question: any 5th grader can understand basic economics, they are really common sense concepts. Why is it such a taboo to make economic arguments in the political sphere?
Did the Reagan / Newt revolution end? Are people no longer willing to listen? Are politicians just scared of it? Did the 1980s tell people it was not true? Or the 1990s tell them the democrats were right? Are there not enough entrepreneurs and investors among the voting masses? Are tax cuts the only economics people care about?
I have not heard Bush make one economic argument about pharmaceutical price controls, about the minimum wage (eg during the debates when Kerry was pushing it), about why private accounts and smaller government are good for the economy as well as good for long term returns; I've not heard him push economic reforms on the basis of the great success that former communist countries are having, economic arguments for the flat tax, etc.
I do give Bush credit for tackling some of these issues or taking the right stand even quietly, particularly as he has enough on his plate in foreign policy to keep anyone busy... but why is it so dangerous to make the economic arguments?
I think Bush could understand and explain them if he was willing to; my question is why its too taboo for him to take on? (or would it just ruin his cowboy image?)" -- liberty
Answer: If you're President Bush, you can't rely on "economic arguments" because they're not necessarily intuitive to most people, they can't be adequately explained in 15-20 seconds, the mainstream press #1) isn't going to take the time to explain it and #2) isn't going to fairly represent what he's saying to the public, and of course, the Democrats are going to try to demagogue what he's saying.
Adding to that, you may think economics is "common sense concepts," but that's not true. A lot of economics is counterintuitive.
For example, take price controls (which I'm adamantly against). The reason they're implemented again and again despite the fact that they lead to disaster is because at first glance, they APPEAR to be a good idea.
Take rent control for example. Who wouldn't love the idea of not having to pay market value for a place to live? And isn't shelter a "right?" I mean you need some sort of shelter to live, correct?
But what happens in areas with rent control? At first, landlords may stop doing repairs and cleaning either because they're losing money or because the cheap price of their accommodations can lure in renters even without basic maintenance.
But over time, buildings are boarded up and allowed to become vacant; rent control means they are guaranteed to lose more money by renting out the buildings. Furthermore, new developers either don't build because of the rent control or find a way to get around it, by let's say building expensive luxury housing that isn't covered by the rent control laws. The result is that rent control actually leads to HIGHER RENTS overall & shortages of housing.
So does rent control make sense? No, but trying to convince people who think they're going to get cheap housing out of it isn't necessarily an easy proposition. Blogs, magazines, and talk radio may be able to do so by going into detail on economic arguments, but it's tougher for politicians to make their case given the circumstances they have to deal with...
"A Bronx teacher who repeatedly flunked his state certification exam paid a formerly homeless man with a developmental disorder $2 to take the test for him, authorities said yesterday.
The illegal stand-in - who looks nothing like teacher Wayne Brightly - not only passed the high-stakes test, he scored so much better than the teacher had previously that the state knew something was wrong, officials said.
..."I was pressured into it. He threatened me," the bogus test-taker Rubin Leitner told the Daily News yesterday after Special Schools Investigator Richard Condon revealed the scam."
...Brightly has been charged with coercion, falsifying business records and other crimes. He has been taken out of his Baychester classroom pending the outcome of the case.
Now here's the real punchline in the "idiot teacher of year" story:
"Brightly, 38, a teacher at one of the city's worst schools, Middle School 142, allegedly concocted the plot to swap identities with Leitner last summer. If he failed the state exam again, Brightly risked losing his $59,000-a-year job."
Gee, ya think they could be one of "the city's worst schools" because they're paying incompetents like Brightly $59,000 a year to teach?
Here's another question: do you think a private school that can only draw students by providing a first class education is going to be more or less likely to have a dope like Brightly on staff than a government run school?
Give parents the option of using school vouchers, which will open up more choices to them, and the sort of schools that hire guys like Wayne Brightly will either be replaced or will have to improve to keep up -- and that would be a good thing.
Cows Have More Protection Under The Law Than Terri Schiavo
Over the last few days we've seen a flurry of articles designed to assuage the guilt of the people who favor starving Terri Schiavo to death. Here's an excerpt from a typical article in Newsday:
"In the evolving saga of Terri Schiavo, the prospect of her suffering a slow and painful death from starvation has been a galvanizing force. But medical experts say going without food and water in the last days and weeks of life is as natural as death itself. The body is equipped with its own resources to adjust to death, they say.
"What my patients have told me over the last 25 years is that when they stop eating and drinking, there's nothing unpleasant about it - in fact, it can be quite blissful and euphoric," said Dr. Perry G. Fine, vice president of medical affairs at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization in Arlington, Va. "It's a very smooth, graceful and elegant way to go."
Schiavo, who hasn't had any food or water since Friday, has been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years that makes it impossible for her brain to recognize pain, doctors say.
"Her reflexes with respect to thirst or hunger are as broken as her ability to think thoughts or dream dreams or do anything a normal, healthy brain does," Fine said.
But even if her brain were functioning normally and she were aware of her condition, she would be comfortable, doctors say.
"The word 'starve' is so emotionally loaded," Fine said. "People equate that with the hunger pains they feel or the thirst they feel after a long, hot day of hiking. To jump from that to a person who has an end-stage illness is a gigantic leap."
Aside from the fact that contrary to what the article says, Terri Schiavo does feel pain -- she cries out when a sharp piece of wood is applied to her back -- don't you find it convenient that all these doctors are coming out of the woodwork to assure us that starvation isn't a painful way to go now that a pro-death lobby is working so hard to starve Terri to death?
I mean, who knew we were denying so much bliss and euphoria to starving kids in Africa by sending food to them? Heck, why have we been giving people on death row lethal injections when starving them to death would obviously be a much more humane way to kill them?
But on the other hand, there's this story brought to us today by the Times Argus:
"A Cabot farmer convicted of starving his cows to death has begun serving a reparative sentence imposed by Washington County prosecutors as part of a plea bargain.
Christian DeNeergaard pleaded guilty to five misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty in January. He received a suspended one-year sentence as well as 30 days of work crew assignment as part of a deal with prosecutors. DeNeergaard, 47, may not own or possess livestock during his year of probation and must also undergo alcohol-abuse counseling.
In October, then-Washington County State's Attorney Tom Kelly said he would seek at least some jail time for animal neglect, which claimed the lives of at least 11 cows.
"We think some jail time is appropriate," said Kelly in an October interview. "The cows suffered tremendously."
Somebody tell that Washington County State's Attorney that those cows enjoyed starving to death! Apparently it's a "very smooth, graceful and elegant way to go."
Isn't it sad that we've gotten to the point in this country that the State will prosecute you for starving cows to death, but will help you starve a woman to death over the protestations of her parents?
Beautiful Bible Stories Rewritten For These Days & Times: King Solomon Cuts The Baby In Half
"Are you sick and tired of those dry, old, Bible stories that don't seem to relate to life in today's America? Well, RWN is coming to your rescue by rewriting the Bible to reflect modern mores. Enjoy!"
Two women came before wise king Solomon with a baby, each claiming the child as their own. Solomon faced a dilemma: how could he know which woman was the true mother of the infant? Solomon quickly came up with a clever idea that would settle the question once and for all. Solomon spoke to the two women:
Since we don't know which of you is the mother, we're going to take the baby and leave him in his crib without food and water until he dies. What do you think about that?"
The first woman was shocked and horrified at Solomon's suggestion. She begged for the baby's life:
"Please, please, King Solomon, do not do that to my child. Anything but that! I renounce all claim to the baby. Please just let her live!"
Solomon then turned to the second woman and asked what she thought of his proposal. She replied:
"Sounds good to me! She's my baby and I think that's what she'd want. Can we start right now? Oh and could you station some guards around her to make sure that no one brings her water?"
After hearing from both women, wise king Solomon immediately knew what to do:
"Well, since one of you renounced your claim on the baby, then it follows that I must appoint the other of you as the baby's guardian. Furthermore, since the guardian thinks we should let the baby starve, that's what we'll do!"
The first woman, anguished at the turn of events pleaded for the wise men who counseled the king to try to change his mind or step in and try to save her baby. But they explained why that wasn't possible:
"You certainly care more for the baby and we believe you have the best interests of the child at heart, but the king traditionally chooses the guardian of the child and we'd have to break precedent to try to change his mind. It's tragic that a child has to die, but you know, it's better to watch a baby starve to death rather than take a step down the slippery slope by taking more time to find out the truth of the situation."
Soon thereafter, the baby was left in a crib and denied food and water until she perished and they all lived happily ever after -- well, except the real mother and the baby who was of course, dead.
I’m against vigilantes in the United States of America. I’m for enforcing law in a rational way. That’s why you got a Border Patrol, and they ought to be in charge of enforcing the border.
This from a president whose administration refuses to fund the Border Patrol. This from a president whose Department of “Homeland Security” actively refuses to enforce immigration laws. This from a president who has proposed a massive amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens who’ve broken our immigration laws. This from a president who has allowed illegal immigration to increase after the September 11, 2001, attacks.
The Humane Thing to Do Is Let Africa Starve -- Satire By Frank J.
Africa has been a troubled region for some time. Unstable politics, genocide, aids outbreaks, mass starvation - we do what we can to help, we send money to Sally Struthers, but do we really think Africa is going to get better and be a fully functional continent again? Sure, we can keep things patched together, but each day Africa exists is just another day of suffering. It's time we face up to reality and give Africa the peace it needs in a natural end.
It's time we starve everyone in Africa to death.
"Yes, before someone brings it up, America does have a 10 trillion dollar life insurance policy on Africa." The U.N. will certainly be on board with this as dealing with Africa has been too much for them as well. We'll have to watch all entry points where people may misguidedly try to bring food to the Africans; as leaders of the world, this is our choice to make and others shouldn't subvert it. Plus, this is what Africa wants as I think I remember some ancient tribal leaders saying they wanted their people starved to death if the continent ended up like it is today.
And yes, before someone brings it up, America does have a 10 trillion dollar life insurance policy on Africa that can be cashed if everyone there dies, but this isn't about America - this is about Africa and what's best for it. And you'd have to be a pretty heartless person to not see how death by starvation is what the people of Africa would really want. Yes, I can't know that I can’t know for sure since they speak languages I don't understand, but can't you see they're tired of barely making it by on foreign aid and showing their children in television ads? They want a natural end.
It's a hard choice to make, but it is ours. Some may complain about us choosing wrong, but the important thing is we know we're right while we let millions die.
Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "I Was Following My Hamster's Wishes When I Put Him in the Microwave" and "Violent Offenders Deserve a Natural Death".
This satire was used with the permission of Frank J. from IMAO. You can read more of his work by clicking here.
My RSS feed (which is located here) is all fouled up. All the posts have the weekly archive address on them instead of the address for each individual entry. Any of you Movable Type techies have any idea of what's wrong? If so, how 'bout emailing or posting in the comment section to let me know what's going on and how to fix it.
Responding To Some Of The Common Objections To The Federal Government Trying To Save Terri Schiavo's Life
It's A State's Rights Issue: This is a particularly unpersuasive point. Since when do unelected judges represent the wishes of a state? Particularly when they're running roughshod over the desires of an elected state legislature...
It's Big Government At Its Worst: Nonsense! I find it amazing that the same people who support the government using force to prevent citizens from bringing food and water to an innocent woman who's being starved to death, think the Federal government is overstepping its bounds by wanting to make sure this woman is in a persistent vegetative state before she's snuffed out.
The Federal Government has been admirably restrained in dealing with this issue and has tailored their legislation to deal with the unique circumstances of this particular case. Their actions are not designed to usurp new powers for the Federal Government, but to prevent the power of the state from being used to take Terri Schiavo's life.
Furthermore, you don't like broad overreaching bills designed to give vast new powers to the government? Then you should hope against hope that Terri Schiavo doesn't die under these circumstances. If and when she does, look for intrusive new legislation to be slammed through Congress in the emotional aftermath of her death. Saving her life is the best way to prevent the growth of the nannystate.
Stepping In To Save Terri Schiavo's Life Isn't Conservative: Maybe it's just me, but I don't see anything conservative about starving an innocent woman to death based on highly debatable evidence about her medical condition while her helpless parents are prevented from aiding her by the government. Furthermore, if there's anyone out there planning on strangling cripples or smothering the mentally handicapped, you can count me out as well.
The Federal Government Is Interfering With Terri Schiavo's Right To Die: Terri Schiavo's wishes in this situation are unknown. The only evidence we have that she would prefer to be dead is the word of her husband who revealed that information years after she was injured. Whether you or I would prefer to live on in that situation is irrelevant, Terri's wishes are what's important, and there's no reliable way to ascertain them.
Terri Schiavo Is In A Persistent Vegetative State: That is hotly disputed and there's evidence that she's conscious, recognizes family members, and even laughs at jokes.
The Federal Government Is Interfering In The Schiavo's Marriage: Please! Michael Schiavo has been living with another woman for 10 years and has two children by her! There may be a marriage certificate that says they're still man and wife, but in effect, Michael walked out on Terri Schiavo a decade ago.
Is This A Description Of A Woman Who Is A Vegetable?
From The Corner, comments by William Cheshire, a neurologist:
"There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3, 2002 examination by Dr. Hannesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a comfortable position, he says to her parents, “So we are going to have to roll her over….” Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying sound, “Ugh, ha, ha, ha,” presses her eyebrows together, and sadly grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no on is touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr’s comment and signals her anticipation of pain. This response suggests some degree of language processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be explained by simple reflex withdrawal."
Here's more:
"He states that "There remain, in fact, huge uncertainties in regard to Terri's true neurological status." She hasn't been fully evaluated by a neurologist for three years, he says, has not had an MRI or a PET. And some of the technology to determine if a patient is in a minimally conscious state has only emerged in the last few years. "New facts have come to light in the last few years that should be weighed in the neurological assessment of Terri Schiavo."
He writes that Terri Schiavo “demonstrates a number of behaviors that I believe cast a reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS.” Among these observations, he pinpoints: “Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of familiar persons such as her parents or her nurses…Several times I witness Terri briefly, albeit inconsistently, laugh in response to a humoroius comment someone in the room had made. I did not see her laugh in the absence of someone else’s laughter.”
You know, in the political game, we too seldom take the time to appreciate the efforts of our adversaries on particular issues. So, with the clock running out for Terri Schiavo, I feel compelled to take a moment to congratulate the people who've fought so long and so hard to help Michael "When is that b*tch gonna die?" Schiavo feed his wife into the bureaucratic machine.
I mean seriously, you folks really kept your eye on that trophy corpse and wouldn't let anyone dissuade you...which was tougher than it might seem and not just because the Florida Legislature, the Republican Congress, and even the President are fighting so hard to save her life. In one sense, that's the easy part.
Personally, were I in your position, the tough part would be ignoring her family. You know, I'll fully admit that I like to think of myself as a rational, logical, tough minded sort of guy -- but wow, here we have a mother and father sobbing and begging for someone to help them save their daughter, and it doesn't move you a bit. I mean just look at these quotes:
"Mary Schindler has pleaded with state lawmakers to save her daughter's life.
"Please, senators, for the love of God, I'm begging you, don't let my daughter die of thirst," she said Tuesday outside her daughter's hospice, before she broke down and was escorted away.
...In court documents, the Schindlers said their daughter began "a significant decline" late Monday. Her eyes were sunken and dark, and her lips and face were dry. The feeding tube was removed Friday afternoon.
"While she still made eye contact with me when I spoke to her, she was becoming increasingly lethargic," Bob Schindler said in the papers. "Terri no longer attempted to verbalize back to me when I spoke to her."
They're offering to take care of her, to try to rehabilitate her, to have more tests done to see if she can partially recover...but that doesn't phase you. You were tough enough to just look these suffering people right in the eye and say, "Sorry, we'd rather err on the side of death." Is that playing hardball or what?
Heck, a lot of people might have questioned how much sense it made to allow Michael Schiavo to be his wife's guardian in this situation given that he denied Terri therapy & that he has been banging another woman for ten years. But hey, if the court says he's her guardian and he wants her dead, then it's gotta go, gotta go.
So again, let me congratulate the "pro-death lobby" & the judges that fought so hard to see Terri Schiavo turned into grease on the wheels of the bureaucratic machine. Because of your efforts, it looks like she's going to die of thirst soon, even while people are being arrested for trying to bring her water.
What a "great victory" you are about to claim over those of us who wanted to do some more testing to find out if a woman's life might just be saved. So here's to you: Clap -- clap -- clap....
Larry Elder In Quotes: RWN's Favorite Larry Elder Quotes Over The Last Year
Larry Elder is a superb columnist who has a knack for coming up with pertinent & fascinating statistics. Here are the best quotes over the last year from Larry Elder's columns at Townhall... (Cont)
The Importance Of A Living Will -- Satire By Liberal Larry
I hate to keep euthanizing a dead horse, but there's one last issue concerning the Terri Schiavo case that I'd like to address before I yank the feeding tube on this whole subject.
Terri Schiavo was fortunate that her loving husband suddenly remembered a conversation they had years ago, in which she said, "If I ever have a heart attack and suffer severe brain damage, I'd like to be slowly starved to death. Pass the bacon, please." But what if Michael Schiavo was out of the room when she made such a request? Who would fight for Terri Schiavo's right to die then? Who would protect her from unscrupulous doctors who wrap themselves in the Hippocratic Oath, seeking only to prolong the life of the ill and infirm?
Compassionate caregivers must always err on the side of Death with Dignity when the patient's true wishes are uncertain, and they should be able to do so with a clear conscience. Once health care is nationalized and medical resources are strictly rationed, a progressive doctor-assisted suicide program such as Oregon's will become a vital tool for keeping hospital beds open for those who truly need it. Religious extremists who are still hung up on all that "sanctity of human life" crap will be encouraged to draft a "Living Will" - a notarized document specifying their sincere desire to inconvenience doctors, loved ones, and society itself by remaining alive for another 40 years. This "Living Will" could be printed on a wallet-sized card that one would present to their doctor or dentist, explicity stating "I'm a Quaker. Due to my antiquated religious beliefs, I politely request that I not be euthanized on this visit. Yes, I know I have hallitosis that can kill a bull moose at 50 yards, but I'd like to pointlessly linger on for a few more years anyway, if you don't mind."
Once we free caregivers from the constrictive binds of guesswork and legal roadblocks, we can look forward to a bright future where the euthanization of undesirables is as natural, beautiful, and merciful as terminating unwanted pregnancies.
Satire used with the permission of Liberal Larry from BlameBush! You can read more of his work by clicking here.
Ordinary Iraqis rarely strike back at the insurgents who terrorize their country. But just before noon today, a carpenter named Dhia saw a troop of masked gunmen with grenades coming towards his shop and decided he had had enough.
As the gunmen emerged from their cars, Dhia and his young relatives shouldered their own AK-47's and opened fire, police and witnesses said. In the fierce gun battle that followed, three of the insurgents were killed, and the rest fled just after the police arrived. Two of Dhia's young nephews and a bystander were injured, the police said.
"We attacked them before they attacked us," Dhia, 35, his face still contorted with rage and excitement, said in a brief exchange at his shop a few hours after the battle. He did not give his last name. "We killed three of those who call themselves the mujahedeen. I am waiting for the rest of them to come and we will show them."
Dang...! Didn't have to go all "pre-emptive," Dhia. I imagine the condemnation from Kofi Annan will be swift and fierce.
Well, not fierce. Kofi Annan doesn't do fierce. Fierce might rumple his thousand-dollar suits.
It was the first time that private citizens are known to have retaliated successfully against insurgents. There have been anecdotal reports of residents shooting at attackers after a bombing or assassination. But the gun battle today erupted in full view of half a dozen witnesses, including a Justice Ministry official who lives nearby.
The battle was the latest sign that Iraqis may be willing to start standing up against the attacks that leave dozens of people dead here nearly every week. After a suicide bombing in Hilla last month that killed 136 people, including a number of women and children, hundreds of residents demonstrated in front of the city hall every day for almost a week, chanting slogans against terrorism. Last week, a smaller but similar rally took place in Baghdad. Another demonstration is scheduled for Wednesday in the capital.
Let us have more of this. Much more.
But there may be consequences for this heroism:
Meanwhile, a group of armed neighborhood men stood watch on the roof of the house, guarding the streets leading to the Husseiniya mosque and Dhia's shop.
"I am sure they will be back," one of the guards said. "We killed three of them."
These men are savages and killers, so I don't doubt there's a good chance they'll be back.
But they are also rather cowardly, and prefer to score their "military victories" against buses full of twelve-year-old schoolgirls and other unarmed civilians.
We will see. Let's hope if they do come back, they die in even greater numbers than before.
This content is being used with the permission of Ace from Ace of Spades. You can read more of his work by clicking here
Normally, I'm a big defender of the police because they risk their lives night in and night out only to be trashed for it by pols & race hustling poverty pimps who are looking to demagogue the cops for fun, profit, and/or votes.
"About a year ago, Buffalo Grove police joined a class-action lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. alleging that the company's Crown Victoria sedans, the car of choice for most law-enforcement agencies, weren't safe.
...Illinois is the only state with a class-action suit involving law-enforcement agencies, including the City of Chicago. But since 2002, 75 municipalities in 20 states have sued Ford, saying that when the Crown Vic is struck from behind at high speeds, the fuel tank, which is between the rear axle and the bumper, can be punctured easily and leak gas.
In the last 20 years, a dozen officers have died and 10 have been severely burned nationwide in fiery rear-end crashes."
Not to belabor an obvious point, but you're at risk in any car on the market if you're "struck from behind at high speeds." Furthermore, they have to put the gas tank somewhere and wherever it may be, you have to believe that there's a possibility that it may be "punctured easily and leak gas" if another car rams into it.
That's nothing but common sense, but there is some evidence to back it up in the article:
"Though federal regulators and a jury in an earlier phase of the trial determined that the car was safe, the judge in the suit, filed by dozens of police agencies in the state, is still considering safety and consumer fraud allegations against Ford. Meanwhile, attorneys are appealing the jury decision.
...Feeney, the attorney for Ford, said the location of the Crown Vic's fuel tank doesn't make it unsafe. The hazards inherent in patrol work are a big factor, he said, adding that law-enforcement officers often have to stop on the shoulder of a busy highway, making them vulnerable to rear-end collisions."
Furthermore, there is a very basic question that needs to be asked: If the Crown Vics are such death traps....well, I don't want to spoil it. Just read this excerpt and you'll understand:
"But now Buffalo Grove--along with dozens of other police departments across Illinois--is trying to drop out of the suit. It wants to buy more Crown Victoria Interceptors, and Ford won't sell them to any agency involved in the lawsuit.
...Despite the crash numbers, police say there's nothing like the Crown Vic, with its roomy interior and powerful engine. Since Chevrolet stopped making the Caprice squad car in 1999, the Crown Vic has been the only rear-wheel-drive vehicle available, police say.
Statistics bear out its popularity: Eighty-five percent of police agencies in the nation use the Crown Vic.
..."We had all of these police departments who were suing us over the safety of the Crown Vic, yet continuing to buy the automobile," said Jim Feeney, an attorney for Ford. "What's wrong with that picture?"
About 1,500 police agencies and municipalities originally were part of the lawsuit. A party can opt out of a class-action lawsuit, but few did so before the trial began last September. After the jury ruled in favor of Ford last year, police agencies started petitioning the court to drop out.
Recently, six more towns hired a lawyer to help them get out of the lawsuit. Montgomery, Sugar Grove, Hampshire, Sleepy Hollow, Batavia and Dundee are paying $300 apiece to file the paperwork needed to withdraw from the lawsuit so they can purchase Crown Vics.
"The village's whole fleet is Crown Vics," said Montgomery village attorney Steven Andersson. "If we get out of the lawsuit, we can purchase them."
Maybe it's just me, but if you really believe that a model of car is so unsafe to drive that it inspires you to sue, are you going to be scrambling to buy more of those particular automobiles? Of course, you're not.
The reality here is that there is no car that has ever been made that is guaranteed to be safe in every possible situation. Even humvees, vehicles which are an order of magnitude safer than anything you're going to see on the street, are having a problem with rollovers. If these police departments are demanding a car that's impervious to harm, they're just out of luck because there is no such thing...
Have you noticed the elephant in the living room that the liberals keep trying to ignore even as they lose election after election? It's the huge "idea gap" between conservatives and liberals. While conservatives are open about what we think and our reasoning, liberals often try to obscure what they believe in or worse yet, publicly run from it. This is why -- as USA Today reported -- Americans think the Democratic Party is out of gas intellectually:
"A recent poll by Democrats James Carville and Stanley Greenberg found that just 44% — scarcely anyone beyond diehard Democrats — think the party has any ideas for addressing the nation's problems."
There are a number of reasons why liberals aren't as forthright about what they believe as conservatives are. One problem for liberals is that the Democratic Party is much more evenly divided than the GOP. Sure, the libs may run the Party, but if they're too open and up front about their agenda, they risk alienating significant numbers of moderate Democrats. Of course, given that the leftward drift of the Democratic Party has cost them much of their support in the South, perhaps the Party leadership hasn't been secretive enough about what they believe.
But the split in the party is just a symptom of a much larger problem: that many liberal ideas have already been considered and soundly rejected by the American people. This is why judges have become so important -- because activist judges are the left's way of getting their policies implemented over the objections of the voters.
There are different ways liberals could deal with this situation. They could try to come up with new ideas, but that's really very difficult for them to do since many liberal political convictions are almost like religious doctrine. They have their beliefs, they are what they are, and they're not very amenable to changing them based on new evidence.
On the other hand, the left could do what the right has spent so much time doing: explaining what they believe and trying to convince the public that their ideas are sound. Unfortunately, most -- but not all -- liberals lack the courage to take this approach. It's one thing to support large tax increases, reparations, abortion on demand, and the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens, but it takes more guts to defend those ideas when they're under fire the way conservatives stand up for their positions on pro-life issues, the war in Iraq, flattening the tax rate, and free trade.
Knee-jerk opposition to conservative policies, coming up with fantastic theories about "wars for oil," and trying to muddy up the water about what liberal candidates really believe is always an easier road to travel...in the short term at least.
But the American public, after hearing the same tired shtick from the left year after year & gaining access to more sources of information that don't always toe the liberal line, has wised up to the tricks & spin.
So if the left wants to make a political comeback in this country -- at least to the point where Democratic candidates for President are willing to publicly admit that they're liberals -- then they're going to have to bridge the idea gap on foreign policy, abortion, Kyoto, gun control, states rights, taxes, socialized medicine, the size and growth of government, and dozens of other issues where what they believe is either incoherent or hidden from the American people.
Until the left does that, they may still be able to win a few battles, but they are doomed to slowly but surely lose the intellectual war with the right...
Across the blogosphere, many people have expressed dismay that Capitol Hill has chosen to get involved in the Terri Schiavo case for political reasons. Well, of course they did -- they're politicians! Everything from where they go on vacation to what dinner parties they go to is influenced by political considerations. So, it's no surprise that Republicans in Washington have taken note of the fact that part of their base has developed a passionate interest in the fate of Terri Schiavo.
But if whether Terri Schiavo lives or dies has become a political hot potato, then some folks might wonder why the George Bush, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, & company are getting involved. After all, according to an ABC Poll, most Americans believe Schiavo's feeding tube should be pulled and that Congress should stay out of it:
An ABC News poll reached the surprising conclusion that a majority of Americans think Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should remain out so she can be starved to death, but the question posed by the news network portrayed her as having "no consciousness" and being on "life support," rather than an awake, responsive patient with a feeding tube.
"Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years," the poll informed respondents. "Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday. What's your opinion on this case – do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo's feeding tube?"
In response, reported ABC, "the public, by 63 percent-28 percent, supports the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube, and by a 25-point margin opposes a law mandating federal review of her case. Congress passed such legislation and President Bush signed it early today."
So why are the big wheels in Washington pulling out all the stops to try to save Terri Schiavo? Because the polling data alone doesn't tell the whole story.
Despite the fact that this might look like a tempest in a teapot to many political observers, a significant part of the GOP base, particularly the social conservatives, are tuned in, jacked up, and ON FIRE over this situation. Unlike many issues that are forgotten in a few weeks, this one is going to linger on with a lot of GOP voters.
Will general elections swing on it? Going by the early polling data, that seems doubtful, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't make the difference in GOP primaries -- maybe in THE GOP PRIMARY everyone is talking about already -- the one in 2008. Standing on the wrong side of an issue that your base has a big emotional investment in can be a risky proposition and shouldn't be done lightly.
But wait a second, what about the voters who don't think the Federal government should be involved? Going by the polling data, don't they outnumber the people demanding that Congress do something? Sure, but they're not passionate about it and that makes all the difference. The "let her die" crowd seems to be made up of casual & / or conflicted observers, liberal diehards who oppose everything Republicans do by reflex, and a few conservatives and libertarians making dry arguments relating to states rights & judicial activism that seem to be largely without merit. Unlike the "Save Terri Schiavo" group, the votes of these people are unlikely to be effected one way or the other by what happens in this case. Besides, it doesn't take a genius to tell you that you're seldom going to lose anything politically by sticking up for an innocent & defenseless woman who's about to be starved to death.
When it's all said and done, is Terri Schiavo going to be allowed to live? That's unknown. But a combination of political necessity & compassion for a woman who may be abandoned to die by the courts while she still has a chance to partially recover, guarantee that the GOP is going to do everything in their power to try to save Terri's life.
Rachel Lucas unloads on the Terri Schviao case as only she can:
"Let's see. I have a dog named Sunny, as many of you know. I signed a contract at the pound taking responsibility for her and I clearly am her legal "next of kin." Now, it's very likely that some day, Sunny will have arthritis in her hips and legs, and she might eventually be unable to move around on her own.
So! Who knows Sunny better than me? No one! So you must take my word for it when I say that I "know" Sunny would not want to suffer from arthritis to the point that she couldn't even walk around. Really, she wouldn't. I am telling you.
So here's my idea to (1) save time and money, (2) to fulfill Sunny's "wishes", and (3) to enforce her "rights": when she gets to the point where the arthritis in her hips and legs is so severe that she can't even stand up and/or walk over to the food and water bowls....WE JUST LET HER LAY THERE AND DIE!!
It's f*cking brilliant, I tell you.
After all. We won't actually be "killing" her. We'll just be letting her die naturally, exactly as she would if she were in the wild. Do you think that if she lived in the woods like wolves and raccoons and squirrels do, that anyone would bring her food and water when she became crippled? F*ck no! So why should we? This is nature, folks. It is Sunny's right to die a natural, peaceful death, unsullied by human or medical intervention.
It will probably only take 7 to 14 days for her heart to give up and stop beating. Her lips and eyes might get kind of dry, but I can slather Vaseline all over her face so she's not too uncomfortable towards the end. You know, while she STARVES TO GODD*MN DEATH LIKE WE COULDN'T EVEN LEGALLY INFLICT UPON SOMEONE LIKE ADOLF F*CKING HITLER.
And what if any of my friends or relatives object to my plan to starve Sunny to death when she can no longer walk? What if they offer to adopt Sunny, to take her to their house, to hand-feed and hand-water her, to take her to the vet and get her good medicine, to get her any kind of therapy she would need to make her life better, and to pay for it all themselves?
THEY CAN KISS MY @SS!!
That's right. If Sunny can't feed herself, then she gets to die, and that is the end of the f*cking story. Just like Terri Schiavo. She "wouldn't want" to live like a vegetable, I am telling you. No, she didn't write it down or anything - but I swear she feels that way...well, at least she did one time a while back when it came up in conversation. You'll just have to take my word for it.
But long before I actually let her starve to death, I think I might pull a Michael Schiavo and find a new dog and bring it to live with me. Sunny can go live in a dog hospice or something, and sometimes I'll be an evil @sshole just like Michael Schiavo and not even let other people who love Sunny visit her. I might even threaten them with never, ever seeing her again! But only because I care so much about Sunny.
...Some of you may disagree with my plan. But how dare you question my commitment to my own dog? How dare you interfere in a private family matter? How dare you consider what other people who love Sunny might have to say about it? What kind of people are you, that you would want to prolong Sunny's misery any longer? She is just a dog/vegetable, after all. She has no consciousness like you and me. She cannot make decisions for herself."
Nobody can match up to Rachel in the ranting department...
Maureen Dowd Is The Most Influential Columnist Of Our Time?
After being savaged by frothing at the mouth feminist Susan Estrich, Michael Kinsley was apparently intimidated enough to make this blockheaded statement:
"But (Maureen) Dowd is different, and she is the most influential columnist of our time."
Maureen Dowd? She's not even the most influential writer at the NEW YORK TIMES. Like them or not, at a minimum, Krugman & Friedman have had far more of an impact than a lightweight like Dowd who's really little more than a female version of Mark Morford.
Heck, how can Dowd be influential given that her whole schtick is little more than free floating snark and...hey, wait a second, that's it! Maybe Kinsley is saying Dowd is influential on the left exactly precisely because she has nothing of importance to say. Perhaps in a world where John Kerry can run an entire campaign based on having served in Vietnam 35 years ago & not being President Bush , Maureen Dowd may be having a larger impact that any of us ever truly realized -- except for Michael Kinsley...
“I cannot marry Condolencia (condolence), because I am much too busy. I have heard she dreams about me.”
You know, Hugo, I heard Condi has dreams about you, too. Unfortunately they all end with the trigger being pulled on a sniper rifle.
Ha, ha, ha! Now that's funny! Aw, c'mon Hugo, I'm just kidding! Just because you're an anti-American socialist sitting on a large supply of oil doesn't mean you have anything to worry about...or maybe it does, who can say in these sort of situations?
Annan: Suicide Bombers Deserve Prison -- Satire By Scott Ott
In his first major move against world terrorism, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan is prepared to propose that suicide bombers face lengthy jail terms, along with other sweeping reforms designed to restore the organization's tarnished image.
"If you blow yourself up and kill innocent civilians, my plan calls for 10-to-20 years in a medium-security prison," said Mr. Annan. "This sends a message that civilized nations have limited patience, and virtually no tolerance, for terrorism."
Mr. Annan's proposal is part of a broader strategy to reform the discredited world body which, under his leadership, has been rocked by sexual abuse scandals, financial scandals and the oil-for-food funding of Saddam Hussein's military buildup, in addition to the decades-long failure of international diplomats to pay New York City parking tickets.
"We're committed to the spread of freedom throughout the world, and when oppressed people cry out for their liberty we will stand with them," Mr. Annan told a news conference, but then quickly issued a retraction. "Forgive me, I accidentally read from a White House news release. The preceding statement does not represent the opinion of the Secretary-General, the Security Council or any U.N. agency."
Satire used with permission of Scott Ott from Scrappleface. You can read more of his work by clicking here.
Why Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube Should Be Reinserted
To be honest, I prefer not to blog about issues I have mixed feelings about because usually it leads to poorly written, mushy punditry that comes across as inconsistent and leaves readers unsure of where I really stand. That's why personally, until this post, I have yet to chime in on the Terri Schiavo case. It's because when I look at what's happening to that poor woman, a potpourri of thoughts and emotions come bubbling to surface.
For example, were I in her place, I'd want the feeding tube pulled. Moreover, I come from a family full of people who'd rather perish than continue on in that situation. I'd even say that I believe that most of my friends wouldn't want to live in Terri's position....yet, that's an easy thing to say when you're well. Who am I -- or any of us for that matter -- to say whether Terri Schiavo would have wanted to live without knowing her feelings on the matter (more on that later)?
Furthermore, my honest opinion is that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state and she's not going to get any better. But again, her family obviously has a different opinion and when I hear that a neurologist who was nominated for a Nobel Prize examined Terri and said that she could "eat on her own" & "improve with therapy," I think that has to be taken VERY seriously.
Then there's Terri Schiavo's husband. Normally, in a case where the husband claims that his wife didn't want to live in this situation, you take his word for it. However, this isn't a normal case.
First of all, Michael Schiavo has been with another woman for ten years and he has had two kids by her. That may be an understandable thing to do if you believe your wife is a vegetable and she can't get better. Be that as it may, Michael Schiavo's "I'm just a devoted husband looking out for Terri" act can't be taken seriously when he's had kids with another woman while his wife is lying in a hospital bed.
On top of that, Schiavo seems suspiciously determined to put Terri Schiavo in a pine box. When you hear that an RN who used to treat Terri says that she could eat food, but Michael didn't allow it and that he said things like, "When is that b*tch gonna die," then any rational person has to wonder if there's another agenda here that doesn't have to do with Terri's well being.
What it all comes down to for me is that if you're going to stand back and allow a woman to starve to death in a hospital death, then at a minimum you should be sure that she's a vegetable. Given the conflicting testimony in this case, I just don't see how anyone can say that fact has been definitively established. So why not have another round of extensive testing and bring in some outside experts? If they don't all agree, then try some therapy and see what happens. If she's a vegetable, she won't know the difference. If she isn't, then maybe a life might be saved. To condemn this innocent woman to death without truly knowing what her condition is would seem to me to be callous and cruel.
PS: I would like to interject one final word of caution in the form of a quote from Thomas Sowell:
"'Hard cases make bad law' is another way the tragic vision has been expressed. To help some hard-pressed individual or group whose case is before them, judges may bend the law to arrive at a more benign verdict in that particular case--but at the cost of damaging the whole consistency and predictability of the law, on which millions of other people depend, and on which ultimately the freedom and safety of a whole society depend."
This is the sort of situation about which that quote was written and I would strongly encourage everyone from the President on down to try to carefully tailor what they're doing to make sure that they don't end up unleashing a flood in an effort to try to water the lawn.
