Popular left-winger blogger Matthew Yglesias takes note of an anti-French book advertised at National Review and opines that:

"I don't even know what this obsession with France-bashing is supposed to be about at this point. During early 2003 it was a useful way to distract the public from the serious questions being raised about the advisability of invading Iraq by stigmatizing all opposition to the war as objectively pro-French (and, of course, pro-Saddam), but there doesn't even seem to be a cynical purpose to it at this point. It's just the descent of conservatism into pure ressentiment (a French word, yes, but it comes to us in English through the German Nietzsche, so...) divorced from any real aims."

This is Hilarious AND ironic!

If you ask a liberal to expound on what's wrong with America, they can reel off an endless litany of complaints. Heck, the "Blame American first" mentality is so entrenched on the left that some of them, like Noam Chomsky, can even make a comfortable living off of kvetching about America.

Yet, the idea that conservatives might be as hostile to France as many liberals are to America is so fantastic to Yglesias that he seems unable to comprehend it. Either it must be part of some sort of stratagem or it's just an irrational dislike that could have no basis in reality.

Loathing America, liberals get -- but getting angry at a treacherous, anti-American nation, that views us as rivals and undercuts us at every turn -- that, they don't understand...

Here are a couple of columns from Clifford D. May & Jonah Goldberg that expand a bit on why so many conservatives don't like France.

Of late, we've been seeing a lot of assaults on conservatives speaking at college campuses. This has been treated like a joke, because these conservatives have been hit with food. William Kristol, Pat Buchanan, Richard Perle, Ann Coulter are the most recent examples.

This is extremely dangerous behavior for obvious reasons. The truth is, when someone runs up on to a stage like that, you don't have any idea what they're going to do. They might have a pie in their hand, but they could also have a knife in their pocket.

That's why anybody running at a speaker like that, whatever their ideology, could fairly be considered a threat, and SHOULD BE TREATED AS ONE by security and by the audience members, and never allowed to get on the stage.

So, if let's say someone is running towards the stage with a pie or salad dressing in his hand and let's say a student stuck his leg out or tackled him or even security tased them, that in my opinion would be perfectly appropriate. In fact, it might even save a life.

Furthermore, since we're seeing a lot of this sort of potentially dangerous behavior aimed at conservatives, might I suggest that security guards or even a couple of large college Republicans should be stationed near the stage to make sure that this doesn't continue to happen.

Last but not least, this should be treated as the serious matter that it is. Any student doing something like this should be expelled and prosecuted in a court of law. If some of these thugs get the jail time that they deserve, it might go a long way towards convincing other people that this sort of assault is a bad idea.

I'm a believer in states' rights, but there seems to be a lot of disagreement these days about what states' rights are in the first place.

For example, I would argue that the Federal Government's attempt to pass a Constitutional Amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman is not an assault on states' rights. How can it be, when gay marriage hasn't been passed by any legislature in the US and 38 states would have to ratify the Amendment for it to come into force?

The reason the protection of marriage Amendment, among other issues, is being talked about in Congress is because power hungry judges at the state and federal level are making decisions on a regular basis, based on little more than their own personal biases and that should be left to elected representatives of the people. Then after our robed masters, like kings of old, issue decrees that all of us must live by, they imperiously proclaim their pig's ear of a ruling to be a silk purse of constitutional law.

What we're starting to see, especially at Congressional level is not -- for the most part -- Republicans who've fallen out of love with Federalism, but legislators who are starting to push back against judicial overstretch. That's a good thing and it's long overdue.

This is the last post about Terri Schiavo that I intend to make until after her funeral mass next week. If you'd like to read what has been written previously about Terri Schiavo on RWN, here's a list:

-- I Come To Bury Terri Schiavo, Not To Praise Her
-- Answering Some Frequently Asked Questions About The Terri Schiavo Case
-- Beautiful Bible Stories Rewritten For These Days & Times: King Solomon Cuts The Baby In Half
-- The Terri Schiavo Case In 70 Words
-- And So It Goes With Terri Schiavo
-- Why Terri Schiavo's Feeding Tube Should Be Reinserted
-- Mark Steyn On Terri Schiavo
-- We Wouldn't Even Treat A Dog This Way
-- Cows Have More Protection Under The Law Than Terri Schiavo
-- Is This A Description Of A Woman Who Is A Vegetable?
-- If You Have A Problem With Saving Terri Schiavo, You Have A Problem With Conservatism
-- The Knowledge Gap & The Terri Schiavo Case
-- The Politics Of The Terri Schiavo Case
-- Q&A Friday #13: Should A Person In A PVS Be Allowed To Die If That Was Their Wish?
-- We Are Still A Nation Of Laws
-- A Message To Some Of The People On My Side In The Terri Schiavo Fight
-- Responding To Some Of The Common Objections To The Federal Government Trying To Save Terri Schiavo's Life

Click on the advertisers -- P-L-E-A-S-E. The more you click, the happier my advertisers are, the more often they buy other ads on RWN, the more money I make, the happier I am, the better RWN becomes.

Put another way, if you don't click on the ads, it means you want Hillary to be President in 2008, you also want Howard Dean to be VP, and it's also very important to you to see Ted Kennedy as our next Secretary of Defense.

Here's one last way you could think of it: JUST CLICK ON ADS! CLICK ON THEM! CLICK ON THEM NOW....uh, please?

ConservativeMatch Dating Service
GoToMeeting Online Meetings Made Easy
Matt Furey Combat Conditioning
Place A Bet On Iraq
Rightalk Online Radio
Right Wing Attire
Wanted: Real Estate Investors
Ankle Biting Pundits
Right-Wing Stuff
Studentcon
VitaminUSA

Because of the suspected use of performance enhancing substances by the overwhelming majority of people in the artistic community, a number of great works have now been called into question.

As a result, the United States Department of Education has been forced to place an asterisk beside numerous pieces once considered to be part of the classical canon.

In literature, for example, works by William Shakespeare, Mark Twain and Ernest Hemingway -- each of whom is suspected of using various stimulants to assist in the creative process -- will now be crossed off mandatory reading lists.

Hamlet and the Mona Lisa are just two of the classic works which will now carry an asterisk.

Likewise, paintings by suspected drug users Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Pablo Picasso and Salvador Dali will be torn out of all artistic text books from this point forward.

Furthermore, music recordings will now be taped over so that the creations of alleged abusers of performance enhancing substances -- i.e., every piece of music written so far -- are not provided an unfair advantage over musicians who choose to remain sober and drug-free.

Together with the Bush administration and the United States Congress, the Department of Education hopes that from now on American students will be free to enjoy the three remaining works of art at their disposal.

This satire was used with the permission of the Chortler.

Lol, the left-wing election fraud racket never ends. Here's the latest from a group of University Professors:

"Officially, President Bush won November's election by 2.5%, yet exit polls showed Kerry winning by 3% [1] . According to a report to be released today by a group of university statisticians, the odds of a discrepancy this large between the national exit poll and election results happening by accident are close to 1 in a million.

Two alternatives remain. Either something was wrong with the exit polling, or something was wrong with the vote count."

Of course, there was an explanation given for why the exit polls were off that seems plausible to me:

"The consortium that conducted the presidential exit polls, Edison/Mitofsky, issued a report in January suggesting that the discrepancy between election results and exit polls occurred because Bush voters were more reticent than Kerry voters in response to pollsters."

But the professors involved just blew that explanation off. However, here's something that any reasonable person -- which probably doesn't include these professors -- isn't going to be able to blow off: the fact that the exit polls have been off by large amounts in 4 of the last 5 Presidential elections and have leaned towards the Democrats every time. Here's the data via liberal Kevin Drum:

In 1988, the exit polling favored George Bush by just 0.6%, but he won by 7.7%.
In 1992, the exit polling data favored Bill Clinton by 12.8%, but he won by only 5.6%.
In 1996, the exit polling data favored Bill Clinton by 14.7%, but he won by only 8.5%
In 2000, the exit polling data favored Al Gore by 2.3%, but George Bush won.

Drum also notes another little factoid that's highly inconvenient for election conspiracy theorists:

"(A)n analysis (done by Mitofsky) shows that exit poll deviations weren't any different in precincts with different kinds of voting machines, which means that electronic fraud is very unlikely as an explanation for anything."

As far as I'm concerned, that should settle the question of whether there was some sort of massive electronic vote rigging conspiracy in the last election once and for all.

As most of you know, the Korean War began with a devastating sneak attack from a Nork military that was larger, much better armed, and more experienced than the South Korean forces. In essence, the Norks cut through the South Koreans like a hot knife through butter and had the US not gotten involved, the war would have been over relatively quickly.

But, there are so many intriguing little details about the war that I've already learned from reading Robert Leckie's "Conflict: The History of the Korean War." Personally, the thing that surprised me the most was how close we came to losing that war, even after American troops got involved. Our Air Force made a big impact, but believe it or not, at one point, the war and the freedom of all the South Korean people may have been lost if not for the actions of a single brigade of Marines.

It was still fairly early in the war and the American and ROK forces were digging in and desperately trying to hold a defensive perimeter to stop the rapid advance of the North Korean forces. But, there was a breach in a key area, one that could have almost irreversibly turned the war in the favor of the North.

Here's a report from Leckie's book by a British military observer that explains how dire the situation was and how their hopes all rested on the marines (emphasis mine):

"The situation is critical and Miryang may be lost. The enemy have driven a division-sized salient across the Naktong. More will cross the river tonight. If Miryang is lost Taegu becomes untenable and we will be faced with a withdrawl from Korea. I am heartened that the Marine brigade will move against the Naktong salient tomorrow. They are faced with impossible odds and I have no valid reason to substantiate it, but I have a feeling they will halt the enemy.

I realize my expression of hope is unsound, but these Marines have the swagger, confidence and hardness that must have been in Stonewall Jackson's Army of the Shenandoah. They remind me of the Coldstreams at Dunkerque. Upon this thin line of reasoning, I cling to the hope of victory."

Here's Leckie's description of the first day of fighting:

"The marines struck in Obong-ni, or No-Name Ridge as they called it, the morning of August 7. Twice they attacked, and twice they were hurled back, but by nightfall they had clawed their way to the summit of two of the ridge's hills."

The next day, immediately following an airstike that took out a machine gun nest, the Marines did what they do best: obliterate the enemy:

But then, the blast still echoing in the surrounding hills, they rose and swept through the destroyed position, their rush gaining momentum until they had taken No-Name Ridge and had put the broken enemy to flight.

The pursuit carried as far as the river, and there, said the log of the carrier Sicily, "the enemy was killed in such numbers that river was definitely discolored with blood."

Had that one battle gone a different way, the entire course of history over the last fifty years could have been dramatically changed for the worse...

Getting Social Security reform done was ambitious and worth trying, but from Day 1, it was going to be a tough sell. Americans -- like most people -- are usually only inspired to make significant changes in policy when there's a crisis of some sort and even those of us who think something needs to be done today will admit that it's going to be more than a decade until the program starts going into the red.

Furthermore, the President just isn't gaining any traction on the issue. While support for private accounts usually crosses the 50% mark, apparently the American people don't trust Bush to handle it, because the approval rating for how he's handling it seems to be mired in the thirties despite the fact that he has been promoting his plan for 3 months.

Of course, most of this isn't his fault.

The people who are receiving Social Security or about to start collecting checks are understandably very suspicious of any changes to a program that put money in their pockets. Furthermore, the Democrats have been extremely disciplined on the issue and as far as I can tell, Bush isn't going to get any support across the aisle for any plan that he proposes, under any circumstances. On top of that, Republican members of Congress are always skittish about making any changes to Social Security because as it is, in every election, no matter what happens, the Democrats try to demagogue them as heartless monsters who want to kill the program and send everyone over 65 into the streets. Anything that makes the Dems' propaganda job easier makes them nervous.

So while I applaud Bush for taking on the issue and think making sure the program stays solvent is vitally important, I think it's time for Bush to accept that it just isn't going to happen, emphasize that his plan won't lead to benefit cuts for people currently receiving Social Security to minimize any political damage in 2006, and quietly let the plan die. That's not to say that they shouldn't have a vote, but it's time to accept that the mountain is a little too high to climb at this point and move on to other things.

...at 9:03 this morning. My condolences go out to the Schindler family and all of her friends. May Terri rest in peace...

Many liberals just eat up kooky conspiracy theories about electronic vote rigging. Even the wife of the Democrats' last Presidential candidate is out there publicly floating the idea that the elections may have been rigged.

Meanwhile, it's many of those very same people who bitterly complain that you can't trust election results, who then turn right around and fight the most important thing we can do to prevent fraud: require some ID to vote.

"Legislation that would require voters to show photo identification before casting ballots has touched off fierce debate in three states, with opponents complaining the measures represent a return to the days of poll taxes and Jim Crow.

Indiana would exempt only those who sign affidavits swearing they are too poor to get an ID or that they have religious objections to obtaining one."

Given that you may be asked to present some type of photo ID if you drive a car, write a check, make a withdrawl at your bank, ask to view an apartment, sign up for a Blockbuster video card, etc., etc., etc., it seems to me that it's very reasonable to require people to present some form of ID to vote.

As a matter of fact, even if we're talking about the very rare person who normally never uses any form of government ID, it's not unreasonable to say that they should be asked to get a state ID card if they want to vote. Here in North Carolina for example, you can get an ID card "valid for a period of four to eight years, depending on your birthdate" for the nominal cost of $10. Is that so much to ask of someone before he/she casts a vote in an election that may determine who the next President of the United States is going to be?

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who isn't in favor of requiring at least some form of identification from a potential voter isn't serious about preventing election fraud.

Get ready for even more of the ultimate spring break intellectual experience! You won’t believe the academic insanity as Iowahawk’s Dave Burge and his inquiring camera crew catch real live college faculty getting their freak on at the beach… in the clubs…. even the hot transgressive action back in their hotel symposia! From Rocky Mountain ski lodges to the beaches of Florida and Cuba, to the hot sun of Texas and across the border to Mexico where anything goes, this all-new video is the biggest, craziest, most blazing Profs Gone Wild spring break video yet! Profs Gone Wild: Extreme Ultimate Spring Break Volume 6 – It’s Hot, Tenured, and Out of Control!

Just how hot? Check it out this uncensored clip of the apres ski hot tub action in Vail, when Dave and crew encounter an unsuspecting Native American Studies chairman from the nearby University of Colorado!

Dave: Hey, what’s up?

Dave (to camera): Are you guys getting this?

From the icy cold slopes of Colorado, Dave travels to the Lone Star State to check out the action on Padre Island… and the annual International ANSWER Wet Manifesto Contest! Sounds like this uninhibited journalism prof from the University of Texas has had one too many Tequila Shooter!

Dave: Hi, we’re filming a movie… what’s your name?

Dave (at camera): Score!

Next, the Profs Gone Wild crew hits the hot beaches of Daytona… along with special guest star Snoop Dogg! You won’t believe the uncensored academic craziness behind the scenes at the Modern Language Association Jello Shotz Party!

Dave (whispering): Snoop and I got a bet to see which one will say and do the craziest sh*t! Keep the video rolling Duane…

Dave: I think we have a winner, Snoop!

Still not hot enough for you? Then watch what happens when Dave and team travel to Cancun, Mexico and follow an entire department of party profs from Columbia University as they stumble from Senor Frogs to Sammy Hagar’s Cabo Wabo Tequila Cantina… and back to the shower of their private condo suite!

Professor #1: (giggle) I am so naughty! I think that the Iraq election is being run with Main Street, U.S.A., more in mind than Main Street, Baghdad, and for them to get away with saying such things depends on our collective gullibility.

Dave (leering and nodding to camera): Awwww yeah…

And that’s just a sampling of the crazy 60 minutes of uninhibited thinking from America’s wet and wild faculty lounge hotties. They come from Cal... Penn State… Florida Atlantic... Duke... San Francisco State... Brandeis... from every state U campus in occupied Amerikkka, and they just can't wait to show you their big bouncy tenures!

Order Profs Gone Wild: Extreme Ultimate Spring Break Volume 6 on VHS or DVD for $29.95, and we'll throw in a bonus copy of Naughty Candid Journalists Bloopers, caught live at the 2004 GOP convention!

If you enjoyed this satire by Iowahawk, you can read more of his work by clicking here.

Despite the best efforts of many of us on the right, nothing short of a miracle is going to save Terri Schiavo at this point. My guess is that even if the feeding tube were reinserted today and they started rehydrating her immediately, it's probably too late. Today is the 13th day since she has been denied food and water and to be honest, I'm amazed she has struggled on for this long without water. Still, if there's anything that can be done to save her life by Jeb and company in Florida or the Republicans up on the Hill, I would strongly encourage them to do it. Her friend Diane Meyer once said Terri told her, "Where there's life, there's hope" and as long as she's alive, I refuse to give up on her.

That being said, I think there are some people on "my side" who're going about this the wrong way.

I've seen Jeb Bush pummeled by a few people for not doing enough to try to save Terri's life. I would respond to that by saying that Jeb did a lot; in fact, he did far more than any other elected official to try to keep Terri from being killed. In fact, he even tried to become her guardian in order to save her life. If you believe Terri Schiavo should be allowed to live, Jeb Bush is a man who deserves to be praised, not verbally kicked in the gut.

Next, this may be a sign of the apocalypse, but let me say a kind word for Jesse Jackson. I deeply dislike Jesse Jackson and have thrashed him on RWN time and time again. Furthermore, I would be the first person to tell you that he's a camera hog and I cannot rule out the possibility that he's doing this to see his face on TV. Yet and still, he's doing a good thing here, I'm glad he got involved, and although I will likely never say this again, I wish he could have gotten heavily involved earlier because it just might have been enough to turn the tide in the Florida Legislature or in Congress.

Last but not least, let me say a kind word for the libertarians and conservatives who came down on the other side of this issue.

I profoundly disagree with their stance on this issue and quite frankly I found a lot of their arguments about Federalism and Congress not having a right to intervene to be dubious and largely without merit. Furthermore, may I add that A FEW OF THEM, although not the majority, came across as hostile to religion and as people who lightly value human life. Maybe that's how they really feel, maybe they were a little caught up in the moment, but I think it's a mistake to delink them or spew bile at them.

When it comes to liberals, my philosophy isn't to open a dialogue with them, it's to defeat them because as a general rule, they're very illogical, close minded people who can't be reached with reason. However, I have a very different philosophy when it comes to moderates, conservatives, and libertarians. With them, you actually have a shot at turning them around on an issue.

In the coming months, I'm sure there will be more than a little debate over the issues of Federalism, States Rights, & the balance of power between the courts and the legislative branch. Instead of hammering them, craft arguments that will bring them around to our way of thinking. Personally, if this happens again, I'd rather have them on our side than against us because that's how you win battles like this --- by building a large coalition of people who agree with you, not by treating people who disagree with you on an issue or two like heretics.

If conservatives who disagree on abortion can get along with each other, we can stomach disputes over this issue.

Sorry there were less posts than normal today, but it was a weird day. I was getting sick about the time I finished the Terri Schiavo FAQ at 5:30 AM or so, went to bed, was up two hours later & feeling lousy, was back in bed by noon, up at like 6 PM, back in bed by 9 PM.

I had a headache all day, didn't eat anything, didn't drink anything other than a few swallows of OJ, and had weird dreams about fighting with a street gang over billboard advertising spots.

On the other hand, it was one of the best traffic days I have had this year with Michelle Malkin & Instapundit delivering something like 13,000 sets of eyeballs between them.

So, I guess it wasn't all bad...

Heather MacDonald on “diversity” in the blogosphere:

Diversity grievances follow the usual logic: Victim-group X is not proportionally represented in some field; therefore the field’s gatekeepers are discriminating against X’s members. The argument presumes that there are large numbers of qualified Xs out there who, absent discrimination, would be proportionally represented in the challenged field.

Why? Could it be that the premise of the “diversity” crusade is wrong — that there are not in fact hordes of unknown, competitively talented non-white-male journalists held back by prejudice? Don’t even entertain the thought. Steven Levy certainly doesn’t. After fleetingly rehearsing his own previous analysis of the web as a pure meritocracy, he dismisses the argument without explanation and trots out the hoariest trope in the “diversity” lexicon: “the old boy’s club.” Why is the top rung of the blogosphere so homogeneous? Levy asks. He answers: “It appears that some clubbiness is involved” — that is, that white male bloggers only link to other white male bloggers."

That last theory is, of course, ludicrous. For example, PoliPundit.com is one of the top-25 trafficked blogs on the web. During the election season, we were in the top 10, with over 300,000 unique visitors on election day.

But readers don’t know my race or gender! Since I started this blog two years ago, I’ve made very little mention of my background. Yet, virtually every prominent blogger has linked to this blog, from Power Line in its earliest days, to Slate’s Mickey Kaus yesterday. The “diversity” agitators are out of luck.

This content is being used with the permission of Polipundit.

Welcome to 1st Amendment bizarro world, where newspapers, magazines, and bloggers can be sued for ACCURATELY REPORTING claims made by politicians that are later ruled libelous:

" The Supreme Court refused Monday to shield the news media from being sued for accurately reporting a politician's false charges against a rival.

Later, the mayor and the councilman who were the targets of the charges sued both Glenn and the Daily Local News."

So let me get this straight: members of the media are supposed to listen to what politicians say, apparently use some sort of super-power that allows us to determine whether a statement is libelous without the benefit of a court case, and then just black out any news that isn't true.

That sounds fun and easy, right?

Moreover, whatever happened to the public's "right-to-know?" I find it ironic that every deeply personal detail of a politician's life is fair game for the press --- and if that same politician stands on a stage full of reporters screaming that his political enemies are "liars," "queers," and "child molesters," --- that there are judges who think it should be ILLEGAL to let the public even know what was said.

Furthermore, have these justices really considered the chilling effect --- of not allowing a neutral reporting privilege -- that this could have on free speech? Consider this real world example cited by press lawyers:

"Otherwise, they said, for example, the press could not have reported last year on the charges lodged against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth because Kerry's supporters said their charges were false."

Imagine simply reporting on a story like the Swift Boat Vets for Truth and getting a cease and desist letter from the Kerry campaign threatening legal action for simply detailing their allegations.

Depending on how this court case comes out, in a future election, we may not have to just imagine it...

*** Note: There's an enormous amount of conflicting information floating around about the Terri Schiavo case. So in an effort to clarify some of the particularly controversial points, I took the time to do some heavy research.

While I have a very strong opinion about this case, I consulted numerous sources on both sides of the issue & tried to be as fair and balanced as possible. ***

When and how was Terri Schiavo injured? On February 25, 1990 Terri Schiavo collapsed. There is controversy over what happened.

The theory most often bandied about is that Terri had bulimia which led to a potassium imbalance, which in turn led to a heart attack. The malpractice suit that Michael Schiavo won was based on this diagnosis. That fact that Terri lost a large amount of weight in the months before her attack contributes to the credibility of this theory.

On the other hand, the Schindlers have speculated that Michael Schiavo may have caused Terri's injuries by trying to strangle her and neurologist William Hammesfahr, who has worked with the Schindlers on this case has denied that Terri had a heart attack:

"In the Emergency Room, a possible diagnosis of heart attack was briefly entertained, but then dismissed after blood chemistries and serial EKG's did not show evidence of a heart attack."

Personally, I find it a little hard to believe that Michael Schiavo could win a malpractice suit that turns on his wife having a heart attack if the hospital denied that she had one. So while there are certainly differing opinions on this issue, I'd have to lean towards the more popular explanation for her injury.

------

Was Terri Schiavo beaten by her husband? Here's an adequate summary of the allegations & Michael Schiavo's response by Newsmax:

"A March 1991 bone scan performed on Mrs. Schiavo showed evidence of "compression fractures" to her back, ribs, legs and ankles. Prior to being found unconscious in her St. Petersburg apartment the year before, Schiavo had not broken any bones, her friends say.

He called the abuse allegations "utterly ridiculous."

You can take a look at the actual bone scan here.

Here's more on the spousal abuse claim from WorldNetDaily:

"In testimony given during the 2000 trial, Terri's girlfriend and co-worker said Terri discussed getting a divorce and moving in with her. She also testified that the couple had a violent argument on the day of Terri's collapse, which prompted her to urge Terri to not stay at home that night – a suggestion Terri disregarded.

"There are only two people who know what happened that night that she collapsed. And one of them is trying to kill the other who is too disabled to speak," (the Schindler's lawyer Pat Anderson) told WND at the commencement of the trial last month.

While it is certainly understandable that this might raise suspicions, without further corroborating evidence like police reports, hospital visits prior to February 25, 1990, or perhaps friends who claim Terri Schiavo told them she had been physically abused, it seems a bit irresponsible to carelessly toss around wife-beating allegations at this point.

------

Did Michael Schiavo provide rehabilitation for his wife? Initially, by all accounts, Michael Schiavo did provide rehabilitation for his wife. However, there is debate about how long the therapy was continued.

According to the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation:

"Terri hasn't had meaningful therapy since 1991, but many credible physicians say she can benefit from it."

On the other hand, according to the Kansas City Star:

"Terri underwent more than three years of rehabilitative therapy after her collapse in 1990."

Whatever the case may be, serious attempts at rehabilitation don't appear to have been made in over a decade.

------

Has Michael Schiavo dated other women since his wife's injuries? Yes. In a late 1993 deposition, Michael Schiavo admitted that he had engaged in 2 intimate, romantic relationships with women other than his wife. Assuming those were the only two relationships he had, and given their length (3 & 8 months), he must have begun dating a little less than two years after Terri's injury.

Here's another interesting snippet from that same November 1993 deposition that some people might find telling. The answers here are being provided by Michael Schiavo:

Question: What did you do with your wife's jewelry?

Answer: My wife's jewelry?

Question: Yeah.

Answer: Um, I think I took her engagement ring and her -- what do they call it -- diamond wedding band and made a ring for myself.

Question: Okay. Anything else? Did you make any other jewelry for yourself?

Answer: No, just that.

Question: What did you do with her cats?

Answer: Her cats were put to sleep on the advice of my mother-in-law.

Currently, Michael Schiavo lives with his fiance, Jodi Centonze. They've lived together for a decade and have had two children together.

------

What happened to cause the split between Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers? At first, the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo got along extremely well:

"They moved in together after Terri's collapse in February 1990, and Michael called the Schindlers ''Mom and Dad.'' A year later, the Schindlers encouraged their son-in-law to get on with his life and date. They even met some of the women he saw (*** Note: The Guardian Ad Litem report also confirms the Schindlers encouraged Michael to date ***).

''I looked at that as maybe he was starting to take a step in the right direction and get his life back together,'' Bob Schindler said in a 1993 deposition. ``He's still a young man. He still has a life ahead of him.''

But things changed in early 1993 and they had a bitter falling out over the money won in the malpractice suit and Terri's rehabilitation:

"Michael initially expected a multimillion-dollar award, and the Schindlers said he promised them a share, which would enable them to care for Terri at home.

Michael soon began believing doctors who told him that Terri had effectively died in 1990. In a 1993 deposition, he testified that Terri had said she would never want to live by artificial means. He imposed a ''do not resuscitate'' order. Hospice staff challenged the order's legality, so he reversed it.

From that point on, Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers became bitter enemies.

------

Did Terri Schiavo say she wanted to die if she were in this condition? This is one of the primary points of contention in this case and with good reason.

Initially, as mentioned earlier, Michael did provide rehabilitation for his wife. Furthermore, in late 1992, Michael Schiavo said the following during testimony given in his medical malpractice suit:

"I believe in the vows I took with my wife, through sickness, in health, for richer or poor. I married my wife because I love her and I want to spend the rest of my life with her. I'm going to do that."

But, in 1993 (Note: this is after Michael Schiavo had already started dating other women and received over a million dollars from the settlement of the medical malpractice suit), his attitude changed rather dramatically.

Michael Schiavo admitted in a November of 1993 deposition that earlier in the year, he had requested that doctors not treat a urinary tract infection that was potentially fatal to Terri. The doctors were not able to comply with Michael's request because it would have been illegal.

According to the The Times Leader, Michael Schiavo first claimed that Terri had told him she wouldn't want to live at this point, but most other sources that I've seen point to that information first being revealed in 1998.

In 1998, Michael said that while watching a movie, Terri had once opined that she wouldn't want to live if she were ever in a coma. Michael's older brother, Scott Schiavo, and Michael's sister-in-law, Joan Schiavo also claimed Terri had a similar conversation with them after a funeral.

On the other hand, one of Terri's friends, Diane Meyer, had a very different story to tell:

"Diane Meyer can recall only one time that her best friend, Terri Schiavo, really got angry with her. It was in 1981, and it haunts her still.

"Where there's life," Meyer recalls her saying, "there's hope."

Added to that is the testimony of Terri's court appointed guardian, Richard Pearse:

"Pearse said he was troubled by the fact that Michael waited until 1998 to petition to remove the feeding tube, even though he claims to have known her wishes all along, and that he waited until he won a malpractice suit based on a professed desire to take care of her into old age. As her husband, Michael would inherit what is left of her malpractice award, originally $700,000, which is held in a trust fund administered by the court. Accounting of the fund is sealed. But Michael's lawyer, George Felos, said most of it has been spent on legal fees associated with the custody dispute.

Pearse also said he did not find Joan and Scott Schiavo's testimony credible."

Believe it or not, there's even more:

The Schindlers had contacted a woman Michael dated in 1991 who told them Michael had confessed to her he did not know what Terri would want. Although the woman refused to sign an affidavit, it bought the Schindlers some time. And with it, they found Trudy Capone.

A former co-worker of Michael's, Capone signed an affidavit on May 9, 2001, stating "Michael confided in me all the time about Terri ... He said to me many times that he had no idea what her wishes were."

Despite the rather large amount of conflicting evidence, Judge Greer ruled in Michael Schiavo's favor on the issue.

------

Is Terri Schiavo in a persistent vegetative state? This is of course, the key issue in the case because if Terri Schiavo is judged to be in a PVS, she can be legally denied food and water. On the other hand, if the diagnosis is that she's minimally conscious, the law requires that she be given food and water no matter what the wishes of her guardian may be.

There's also quite a bit of controversy over what her condition actually is and with good reason.

According to the New York Times:

"At least six neurologists have examined Ms. Schiavo, and in affidavits or testimony four of them agreed that she was in a persistent vegetative state and highly unlikely to recover."

The flip side of this argument is that there are many qualified experts who disagree with that diagnosis. Florida neurologist William Hammesfahr & neurologist William Cheshire of the Mayo Clinic have gotten the most attention in the last week, but based on the videos that have been made public, 33 physicians (including 15 board-certified neurologists) have signed affidavits stating that Terri's condition should be reevaluated.

Combine those conflicting diagnoses with the fact that Terri Schiavo has never had a MRI or a PET and the fact that the error rate in diagnosing PVS has been reported to be as high as "43 percent," and it's clear that there is still more than a little room for doubt about her true condition.

In the past, to inspire people to suggest new music that I might be interested in and just for entertainment's sake, I've posted the music I was currently listening to on RWN. But, thanks to wonders of modern technology, I can now tell you which songs I listened to the most over the last month. (And yes, this is a bit early, but since it's the day'o'lists...)

Here's the list for March...

9) Smashmouth: All-Star
9) Smashing Pumpkins: Bullet With Butterfly Wings
9) Korn: Falling Away From Me
9) Johnny Cash: Hurt
9) Duran Duran: Save A Prayer
9) Disturbed: Down With The Sickness
9) Deftones: Change
9) The Cure: Just Like Heaven
9) Creed: My Sacrifice
7) Mariah Carey: Against All Odds
7) Green Day: Boulevard Of Broken Dreams
3) Offspring: I Choose
3) Motley Crue: Home Sweet Home
3) Everclear: Wonderful
3) Barenaked Ladies: One Week
2) Kid Rock: Lonely Road Of Faith
1) Smashing Pumpkins: Landslide

If you want to suggest some music that you think I should check out, feel free to post it in the comments section...

I'll admit that it's a little early to do my 2nd quarter blog rankings, but since I'm doing all lists today, it seemed like a good time to do this again.

Do keep in mind that as the quarter has progressed, some blogs have of course moved up and others have dropped, based on how often I visit them, how much I like what I see when I get there, how often the blogs are updated, etc., etc. As per usual, do keep in mind that these sort of lists changes frequently over time based on a variety of factors. So if your blog didn't get included, it's no big deal -- it may make it next time.

Also, if there are any other bloggers out there who rank at least 20 favorite blogs or more in order today and then link back to the post & let me know about it, I'll add a link to your post right here later tonight.

Come on folks, let's see how the blogosphere stacks up!

Here's my current list...

40) INDC Journal / Alarming News (Tie)
39) Vodkapundit
38) Belmont Club
37) Blue-Eyed Infidel
36) Dust In The Light
35) ProfessorBainbridge
34) La Shawn Barber's Corner
33) Blogs For Bush
32) Wizbang!
31) RedState
30) Right Thinking Girl
29) Viking Pundit
28) Q&O
27) Chrenkoff
26) Jihad Watch
25) DANEgerus Weblog
24) Tongue Tied
23) Right Thinking From The Left Coast
22) JunkYardBlog
21) Knowledge Is Power
20) Power Line
19) BlameBush!
18) Villainous Company
17) Inoperable Terran
16) Kausfiles
15) Captain's Quarters
14) The Jawa Report
13) Ankle Biting Pundits
12) Scrappleface
11) Hugh Hewitt
10) Ravenwood's Universe
9) Ace Of Spades HQ
8) IMAO
7) Betsy's Page
6) Little Green Footballs
5) Tim Blair
4) Instapundit
3) The Corner
2) Polipundit
1) Michelle Malkin

See all the previous rankings by clicking here.

*** Update #1 ***: More lists from round the blogosphere:

RightPundit
Iowa Voice
Hear The Hurd
No Oil For Pacifists
Daly Thoughts
Ramble Strip
Pubilus Pundit
Quid Nemis
The American Mind

1) Scott Keith: Wrestling's One Ring Circus: The Death of the World Wrestling Federation (A for wrestling fans)

2) Joe Scarborough: Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day : The Real Deal on How Politicians, Bureaucrats, and Other Washington Barbarians are Bankrupting America (A-: The real deal on how Congress wastes your money)

3) P.J. O'Rourke: Peace Kills: America's Fun New Imperialism (B-: Readable, but not's P.J.'s best work)

4) Dick Morris: Power Plays: Win or Lose -- How History's Great Political Leaders Play the Game (A-: Great for political junkies)

5) Ed Rollins: Bare Knuckles and Back Rooms : My Life in American Politics (B: Great for political junkies)

6) Steven Pressfield: Gates of Fire : An Epic Novel of the Battle of Thermopylae (A+: Incredible read, loved it, loved it, loved it)

7) Paul Cartledge: The Spartans: The World of the Warrior-Heroes of Ancient Greece, from Utopia to Crisis and Collapse (C: Good information, but very dry reading and poorly organized)

8) Ann Coulter: How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter (B-: If you've regularly read Ann's columns for the last few years. A- if you haven't)

9) Thomas Sowell: Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One (B: Good stuff, but I liked Basic Economics better)

10) Mark Dubbin: Shadow Patriot (Unranked: Advertiser)

Currently Reading -- Robert Leckie: Conflict: The History of the Korean War, 1950-53

Thanks to TiVo, I've gotten an opportunity to expand my viewing horizons on the tube. Here are my current faves -- in order...

10) Total Nonstop Action Wrestling!
9) The Twilight Zone (The Original)
8) 24
7) Family Guy
6) The Simpsons
5) The Venture Brothers
4) Sealab 2021
3) South Park
2) Futurama
1) Buffy The Vampire Slayer

One of the myths about conservatism is that there is a huge split between market based conservatives who're primarily concerned about taxes, free trade, & deficit spending and social conservatives who're only moved by issues like abortion, prayer in schools, and smut on TV.

This is for the most part untrue.

That's not to say that there aren't exceptions to the rule or an attempt to deny that some conservatives place a heavier emphasis on the culture war than economics & vice versa, but what you will find when cut through the hype is that there is a tremendous amount of overlap between these two groups.

We've seen this misconception played up to the hilt because of the controversy over the killing of Terri Schiavo, which is still ongoing.

Despite the propaganda that's being tossed around on this case, the religious right is not driving this issue, the push is coming from plain old conservatives who've tried to spare Terri Schiavo's life.

Want proof?

I've taken the time to try to put together a very basic list of those on the right who're in the pro-death camp and those who oppose the government starving Terri Schiavo to death. There are some prominent folks who haven't commented, who haven't clearly come down on one side or the other, and certainly I may have missed a few people, but considering the vast size of the conservative movement, you're never going to get a perfect reading when you try to see where everyone stands on this sort of case.

First of all, here are the prominent members of the right-of-center, pro-death lobby on this issue:

American conservatives William F. Buckley & Grover Norquist, British conservative John Derbyshire, Libertarians Neal Boortz & Glenn Reynolds, & Andrew Sullivan -- if you even consider him to be a conservative, which I personally don't.

On the other hand, the group that favors saving Terri Schiavo's life includes the Republican Congress which voted 156-5 in favor of having her case looked at in the Federal Courts, Jeb Bush, Florida's Republican legislature which has already attempted to save Terri's life multiple times, and the President himself, George Bush.

Now, here's a list of just some of the right-of-center radio talk show hosts, talking heads, & pundits who believe Terri Schiavo shouldn't be killed without at least making more of an effort to find out whether she's truly in a persistent vegetative state:

Glenn Beck, William Bennett, Pat Buchanan, Linda Chavez, Ann Coulter, Vox Day, Joseph Farah, John Gibson, Hugh Hewitt, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Jack Kelly, Alan Keyes, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Larry Kudlow, G. Gordon Liddy, James Lileks, David Limbaugh, John Leo, Rush Limbaugh, Lopez, Kathryn Jean, Rich Lowry, Michelle Malkin, Michael Medved, Brendan Miniter, Peggy Noonan, Jay Nordlinger, Robert Novak, Bill O'Reilly, John Podhoretz, Dennis Prager, Wesley Pruden, Michael Savage, Joe Scarborough, Thomas Sowell, Ben Stein, Mark Steyn, & Cal Thomas.

Two things about that list:

#1) The size of it dwarfs the "pro-starvation crowd" list.

#2) The majority of the conservatives listed are not considered to be members of the "religious right" per se. To the contrary, the people who believe we should err on the side of life in this instance make up the Creme de la Creme of the conservative movement in this country.

Given that, I'd suggest that if you have a problem with the Republicans who have stood up for Terri Schiavo, you don't have a problem with the "religious right," you have a problem with conservatism.

That's not to say that people who label themselves conservatives can't disagree. There are self-labeled conservatives who are pro-abortion, who favor high taxes, who want bigger government, who oppose free trade, on and on and on. That doesn't mean they're bad people, they just disagree with most other conservatives on those issues. So it is in this case -- with one important difference from the norm.

If you're looking for the line of demarcation in this case with conservatives/Republicans, it's not between social conservatives and market based conservatives, it's for the most part between those of us on the right who've been informed of the many troubling details of this case and those of us who haven't. Slowly, but surely, the word is getting out despite the best efforts of the mainstream media, and you will see opinions change as the facts come out. But sadly, Terri Schiavo is going to be killed in the interim...

As a change of pace, today -- and today only on RWN -- will be a day of lists. Each and every post will have at least one list in it...

It looks like Frank J. from IMAO is finally marrying his gun slinging t-shirt babe, SarahK. I even got a thank-you from Frank J. in his post announcing the wedding:

"Then I have to thank Geeks with Guns and John Hawkins of RightWingNews for sending me my first real traffic. John Hawkins later asked for permission to put up my posts in full on his site which helped promote me and also was a judge in the t-shirt babe competition."

Actually, the last part is a bit ironic. You see Frank met Sarah after she won his t-shirt babe contest. The reason I say that's ironic is because despite the fact that Sarah won the contest, she didn't make my top 5. In fact, had I gotten my way, Reva would have won and Frank J. would probably be getting married to her instead...

..Uhhh, geeze, maybe I should rephrase that. I mean now that they're getting married, you can just imagine the conversations:

Frank J.: "Hey baby, I'm going to go ahead and link this column on RWN..."

SarahK: "Don't you dare! He voted against me in the t-shirt contest and we wouldn't be married if I hadn't won and met you! You better never link him, na, na, na, na, blah, blah, blah, na, na, na, na..."

You know how it goes when the old ball and chain gets firmly attached to the ankle....

No, I'm just kidding. In all seriousness, Frank, Sarah, I'm happy to hear that you're getting married. I wish you all the happiness and success in the world. You deserve it...

*** Update #1 ***: Here are the details of how Frank J. popped the question on SarahK's blog.

*** Update #2 ***: See? See? See? From the comments section:

"thanks, and don't think we haven't already had the conversation more than once! it usually goes:

by sarahk"

After reading the post below by Jayson Javitz, RWN reader Joe R. opines:

"Republicans spend more than they should, but not as much as Democrats would" hardly leaves me with a warm, fuzzy feeling."

Dittos to that.

But unless changes are made to the system, we're going to continue to see large deficits for the foreseeable future.

There is a reason why I say that: It's because spending more government money brings great political rewards while spending cuts are punished politically.

Most Democrats are by nature tax and spenders and most Republicans, while being in favor of spending cuts in the abstract, are not in favor of spending cuts that actually effect them. How many diehard 65 year old Republicans do you hear calling for cuts in Social Security? You know any conservative vets calling for less to be spent on Veterans benefits? Even Republicans, whether they admit it or not, like legislators who bring home the bacon. So there really is no constituency at the local level clamoring for legislators who'll bring home a smaller slice of the pie as long as taxpayers in other states are picking up the tab.

Furthermore, you have to consider the political dynamics of spending cuts vs. spending increases.

Usually, spending increases benefit specific groups who may show their appreciation with votes and campaign contributions when a politician showers them with the public's lucre. On the other hand, who's penalized by spending increases? All of us, but in relatively small amounts, which leads to there being minimal electoral penalties for wasting our tax dollars.

In other words, if Robert Byrd theoretically manages to attach a provision to a bill that leads to a lot of West Virginia coal miners getting college scholarships for their kids at a cost of $300 million dollars, the coal miners will be thrilled with him, but the taxpayers paying for those scholarships won't get angry. That's because there are so many ridiculous pork barrel projects being rubber stamped by Congress that they won't be able to pick that one out the pack. As a matter of fact, 90% of the population will probably never even find out about the spending in the first place.

But, the flip side of this is if Republican Candidate X runs against Byrd for the Senate in 2006 and calls for repeal of the "scholarships for coal miners act," the coal miners are going to respond by voting for Byrd and sending him campaign contributions. Moreover, Candidate X is going to get nailed with campaign commercials accusing him of wanting to prevent kids in West Virginia from getting an education. On top of that, don't forget that most of the tab for these scholarships is being picked up elsewhere. So the reality is that most people in West Virginia, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, are going to be saying to themselves: "This is a good deal for us. Why would we want to give this up?"

This is what people who are serious about fiscal responsibility are up against and why it has been almost impossible to rein in government spending.

Now, I know some of you are probably thinking: "Wait a second, what about the Clinton years? How was spending gotten under control then?"

There was a unique set of circumstances at play during the Clinton years. You had a democratic President and a republican House that had a sizable, conservative, freshman class in 1994 that was elected in large part because of opposition to Clinton and the fiscal responsibility that they promised in the Contract with America. So they fought Clinton tooth and nail on every new spending proposal (and some of them, like Hillarycare, would have been titanic, budget busting monstrosities).

Of course, if we had a republican Congress and a democratic President today, we would probably see less spending, but given how in vogue triangulation has become, I think we might simply see Republicans offering up smaller spending proposals than the Democrats instead of fighting to block new expenditures as they did during the Clinton years.

So what can be done? Democrats openly believe in big government, Republicans talk tough about cutting spending and then usually don't do it, and Libertarians don't ever get elected. So no matter which Party you support, you're only going to get more spending.

The only long-term solution to the problem is to try to fix it legislatively with some sort of Balanced Budget Amendment that forces fiscal responsibility upon our legislators. One thing that would make a big difference would be a Tax And Spending Limitation Amendment of the sort proposed by Milton Friedman in my interview with him:

"Milton Friedman: What we should consider and what has been considered is a Tax And Spending Limitation Amendment, an amendment to hold down total spending. I don't think it needs to be in the form of a Balanced Budget Amendment, but that's one form it can take.

Milton Friedman: Yes, but the example that comes to mind really is the Colorado Tax And Expenditure Limitation Amendment that requires the spending to increase no more from year to year than population and inflation. Also, it requires that any revenues in excess of spending have to be returned to the taxpayers."

Of course, making changes that would keep Social Security & Medicare costs under control would be helpful as would term limits, which would insure that we had legislators who were more concerned with doing the right thing for the country than getting reelected.

Government spending can be controlled, but we're going to have to do more than shake our fingers at Washington and admonish them to work harder to save our money. If we want to see realistic, long-term fiscal responsibility, we're going to have to change the system.

Some people out there believe Republicans and Democrats are “all the same,” when it comes to profilgate federal spending.

Yep.

And other people still believe in the Tooth Fairy.

Here are some raw statistics regarding the U.S. Senate’s most recent budget deliberations:

a) There were 17 distinct amendments by which extra federal spending was proposed, of which 13 – 76% – were offered by Democrats.

b) Of the 13 Democrat-sponsored amendments, there were 9 separate occasions – 69% – on which literally the entire Democratic caucus, including Jeffords, voted in favor of the additional federal spending contemplated therein.

c) On the other hand, in connection with those 13 spending measures, there were 7 distinct occasions on which 95-plus percent of the GOP caucus voted against the additional spending, with four occasions on which the entire caucus – yes, including Chafee, Snowe, Collins, and Specter – voted for spending austerity.

d) Democrats voted in favor of additional spending, in connection with the various amendments one of their brethren proposed, at an average rate of 98 percent.

e) On the other hand, in connection with those various Democrat-sponsored spending proposals, the GOP caucus voted against the attendant spending, at an average ratio of 94 percent.

f) Regarding the 4 spending amendments proposed by Republicans, Democrats voted in favor of the attendant, increased spending at a ratio of 100 percent, in each instance.

g) On the other hand, with regards to those same GOP-sponsored proposals, the average share of the GOP caucus which voted against the contemplated spending was 54 percent.

Despite what you might read in other circles, the harsh truth is that there are fundamental distinctions, on the issue of federal spending, between the two major political parties in this country.

Yes, the GOP has been spending too much (non-defense) money over the past couple of years. But the Democrats would have us spending even more. Far more. Much more. In fact, it’s not even close.

If you’re a fiscal conservative, and you want less federal spending, you just ain’t gonna’ achieve that goal by allowing modern-day Democrats to win major elections.

And you can take that one to the bank.

Note: Data here.

This content was used with the permission of Polipundit. You can read more of Jayson Javitz's work at Polipundit or at Political Vice Squad.

The inimitable Mark Steyn on Terri Schiavo:

"There seems to be a genuine dispute about her condition -- between those on her husband's side, who say she has ''no consciousness,'' and those on her parents' side, who say she is capable of basic, childlike reactions. If the latter are correct, ending her life is an act of murder. If the former are correct, what difference does it make? If she feels nothing -- if there's no there there -- she has no misery to be put out of. That being so, why not err in favor of the non-irreversible option?

As to arguments about ''Congressional overreaching'' and ''states' rights,'' which is more likely? That Congress will use this precedent to pass bills keeping you -- yes, you, Joe Schmoe of 37 Elm Street -- alive till your 118th birthday. Or that the various third parties who intrude between patient and doctor in the American system -- next of kin, HMOs, insurers -- will see the Schiavo case as an important benchmark in what's already a drift toward a culture of convenience euthanasia. Here's a thought: Where do you go to get a living-will kit saying that in the event of a hideous accident I don't want to be put to death by a Florida judge or the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals? And, if you had such a living will, would any U.S. court recognize it?"

*** Update #1 ***: There was one other throwaway line from the column that I thought was worth repeating:

"...for the courts to treat (Terri) like a Death Row killer who's exhausted her appeals is simply vile."

Quite frankly, I think that's being too kind. To say that Terri has been treated like a "Death Row Killer" implies that she's at least being looked at as a human being. The thing that really bugs me is the number of commentators who are talking about her as if she's an object, like a coffee table. You know the type of arguments I'm talking about:

"Well, you know, maybe the judge is right, maybe he's wrong, but he made a ruling and that's the important thing."

We're talking about a human being here, a woman, who is going to be starved to death because armed agents of the government are going to stand there with guns and arrest anyone who tries to give her sustenance. This is in essence a death sentence that's being enforced against a woman who is accused of no crime.

Yet, we're being told that the important thing here isn't necessarily who's right and wrong, it's the process. Maybe as a society, we can live with that if we're talking about a coffee table, but when an innocent human life is on the line, that's just not good enough.

That's what the cacophonous din over the last week has been about and the injustice of what's happened will have repercussions long after Terri Schiavo passes on, hopefully to a better place than this one....

After I reupped on my apartment for another 6 months, the apartment people kicked in a free carpet cleaning which is great because Patton has the unfortunate habit of throwing up on the floor ever so often which produces some rather "colorful" stains.

Anyway, I asked them to call before they came by so I could make sure that I was there or at least make sure that Patton was penned up so that he wouldn't go all Cujo on them. Unfortunately, they must not have gotten that part of the message.

So I'm sleeping way late after staying up until 5:30 AM working on the page and there must have been a knock on the door. I'm totally zonked and don't even hear it, but Patton does and he's at the bedroom door in a flash. Then I hear the next knock, hop up and start to open the bedroom door.

Simultaneously, the carpet guy must have figured no one was there since I hadn't responded, and used the key the apartment people gave him to come in, undoubtedly planning to just do the carpet while I was away.

Unfortunately -- for him -- when Patton made a snarling, barking, growling b-line for him as soon as I opened the door, which prompted a loud "Oh Sh......" before he slammed the door shut. After taking a moment to calm Patton down, I stepped outside, talked to him and set up another time for him to come by.

But when I came back in, the dog was so totally pleased with himself. He was jumping up and down & wagging his tail, as if he wanted to say: "Did you see that? I saved us from a home intruder! Was that awesome or what? Did you see the way he ran from me?"

Then I told him he was a "good boy," and headed back to bed...

There has been quite a bit of talk about a Republican crack-up over the Terri Schiavo case. The WAPO even says that:

"Republican lawmakers and others engaged in the debate say an internal party dispute over the Schiavo case has ruptured, at least temporarily, the uneasy alliance between economic and social conservatives that twice helped President Bush get elected."

Ok, well here's a very relevant question for the people who believe that: Can you give me a list of all the prominent American conservatives who oppose saving Terri Schiavo's life?

Now me? I know of exactly two. Grover Norquist who seems to favor letting her die because he thinks the polling data is bad on the issue (*** which doesn't exactly say much for his character ***) and William F. Buckley, who in all fairness, came across as rather torn about the issue. Maybe there are a few more big name conservatives who favor snuffing out Terri Schiavo's life, but in any case, they look to be outnumbered at least 10 to 1.

I can say that with confidence, because among prominent conservative magazines, talk shows, talking heads, and major league columnists, the consensus on keeping the government from starving Terri Schiavo to death is about as close as you're going to get to unanimous on just about any issue.

Furthermore, the Republican Florida legislature & Jeb Bush, along with his brother in the White House are all on board. Among Republicans in the House, the vote count on trying to keep Terri from being killed was 156-5 in favor. The Senate passed the bill on a unanimous voice vote.

In contrast to what you might think, given what the press has been saying about the issue, the Democratic Party is the one that has been split about piling on the pro-death bandwagon. Ralph Nader & Jesse Jackson both came out in favor of life for Terri. The Congressional Black Caucus produced 9 votes for the legislation and 13 against. On the whole, the Democrats in the House had 42 members vote to save Terri and 53 who wanted to let her die. Furthermore, no Democrats in the Senate voted against sparing Terri's life.

But you may be thinking: "Wait a second, how can big name conservatives and Republicans on the Hill be almost totally united on this issue, while Democrats in Washington are roughly divided? The polling data says the American people don't want Washington involved and think that Terri should be denied her feeding tube? Why are we seeing such a huge disconnect here?"

Here's where -- for the most part on the right at least -- the real split on the Terri Schviao issue is: it's between the people who are familiar with the case and the people who aren't.

Sadly, the liberal media has campaigned as hard to put Terri in the ground as they did for John Kerry during the election. The polling data on this issue? It has come almost exclusively from pro-death push polls that don't adequately explain to the public what's happening. Here's the wording of an oft-cited ABC Poll that Michelle Malkin railed against in her latest column:

"As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her parents and her husband disagree on whether or not she should be kept on life support. In cases like this who do you think should have final say, (the parents) or (the spouse)?"

This is obviously an incredibly misleading question which doesn't truly capture the issue at stake.

First of all, to the average person, "life support" is a machine keeping you alive, it's not FOOD AND WATER.

Secondly, the whole reason this has become such a big issue is because there are qualified experts who disagree with the conclusion that Terri has "no consciousness" and is in a persistent vegetative state. To leave that fact out is to attempt to deliberately mislead the people taking the poll about the crucial area of disagreement in this case.

Furthermore, how many Americans know that Michael Schiavo, who pretends to be a devoted husband on TV, has been with another woman for a decade and has had two children by her? Are they aware that he used funds specifically marked for Terri's rehabilitation to try to have her feeding tube pulled in court? Has the public been alerted that Terri Schiavo has never had an MRI or a PET? Have they been told that there are multiple nurses who've testified that Michael Schiavo denied his wife rehabilitation & at least one who says he openly wished for her death and prevented them from giving her sustenance without a feeding tube?

There has been a full court press on in the conservative media to let the public in on these details, to let them know that the State is erring on the side of death here, but unfortunately, Terri Schivao will likely be dead before the truth gets out...