Right Wing News will return on Monday. Until then, enjoy the links below and consider this to be open thread. Also, if you're looking for the latest on Andrea Clark, you can find it here.
PS #1: Could you help me out by clicking on an ad or two? I'd really appreciate it and I'm sure that my advertisers would, too.
PS #2: If you're a blogger who's having trouble getting trackbacks to show up on RWN, it may be because of some -- hopefully temporary -- anti-trackback spam measures I've had to take.
"The report out this morning shows that the U.S. gross domestic product grew at an annual pace of 4.8 percent between January and March."
Too bad that high gas prices and the liberal bias of the MSM are keeping Bush from getting the credit he deserves. His perfectly timed tax cuts have a lot to do with the economic boom we've been experiencing.
-- Rush Limbaugh is FINALLY in the clear on those doctor shopping charges in Florida. In the end, he didn't have to plead guilty, he only paid a $30,000 fine (which is nothing for a guy who makes as much as Limbaugh does), and he doesn't have to do anything but stay out of trouble for 18 months. All and all, this is a big win for Rush and a big loss for the prosecutor, who, let's face it, only went after Rush because he's Rush. If Joe Smith, a mechanic, had been in the situation, the chances of the prosecutor going after him would have probably been close to zero.
--- The LA Times has brought the hammer down on Michael Hiltzik for using sock puppet identities to attack his enemies and defend his work in the comment sections of other blogs:
The Times is discontinuing Michael Hiltzik's Golden State column, which ran in the Business section, because the columnist violated the newspaper's ethics guidelines. This follows the suspension last week of his blog on latimes.com, which also has been discontinued. Hiltzik has acknowledged using pseudonyms to post a single comment on his blog on latimes.com and multiple comments elsewhere on the Web that dealt with his column and other issues involving the newspaper.
On the upside for Hiltzik, at least they didn't fire him. Although I have no love for Hiltzik, I think the LA Times really overreacted. A little slap on the wrist and a warning not to do it again would have been plenty of punishment given the minor nature of his offense.
-- Polls may tell you how many people favor or dislike a particular policy, but they often have trouble truly capturing the level of intensity -- and that's a problem. 30 or 40 intense voters may produce significantly more votes and/or campaign contributions than 60 or 70 lukewarm voters.......
Which brings us to immigration and some polling questions asked by Rasmussen. What do you think these numbers say about the energy and intensity of the anti-illegals crowd:
The survey also asked respondents how they would vote if "a third party candidate ran in 2008 and promised to build a barrier along the Mexican border and make enforcement of immigration law his top priority."
With that option, support fell sharply for both major parties. The Democrats still come out on top with support from 31% of Americans. The third party candidate moved into a virtual tie at 30% while the GOP fell to 21%.
This result probably reflects unhappiness with both parties on the immigration issue rather than a true opportunity for a third party. Historically, issues that drive third party candidates get co-opted by one of the major parties as they demonstrate popular appeal. Most Americans favor a barrier along the border and enforcement of existing law prior to other reforms.
With the immigration issue candidate as an option, 36% of conservative voters opt for the Republican candidate while 35% take the third party option. Among political moderates, 34% pick the Democrat while 32% prefer the third party option.
The pro-illegal Republicans in the Senate should look at those numbers and tremble.
-- Bush is wrong about a lot of things in the illegal immigration debate, but he's right about this:
"I think the national anthem ought to be sung in English, and I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English and they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English."
It's bad enough that you have illegals who don't respect our laws marching in the streets, telling Americans what to do in Spanish while they wave foreign flags and threaten to close down American cities. But now, they're going to disrespect our national anthem? Why in the world would we want to allow people like this to remain in the United States or worse yet, allow them to become citizens? We didn't ask them to come here, we don't want them here now, and their behavior has been disgraceful. Can we deport them all faster please?
St Luke's Reneges: Andrea Clark's Life Is Still In Jeopardy
I've just spoken with Andrea's sisters, Melanie Childers and Lanore Dixon, today, as well as Andrea's lawyer, Jerri Ward.
Unfortunately, St. Luke's has reneged on the deal. Lanore told me that about 20 minutes before Andrea was supposed to be moved to the Illinois facility, St. Luke's told the family the move was off. It seems that St. Luke's decided at the last minute that Glenshire Nursing & Rehab Centre in Illinois isn't equipped to care for Andrea, which is a bit puzzling, since Lanore told me they helped set up the transfer in the first place.
This means that Andrea's life is still in danger. Jerri tells me that the hospital has only promised, in writing, to not pull the plug on Andrea on Saturday, Sunday, or Monday. But, from Tuesday on, they're reserving the right to pull her life support at any time after giving "reasonable" notice to the family. Is there such a thing as "reasonable" notice that you're about to end an innocent woman's life against her wishes and the wishes of her family?
In any case, on Tuesday, the hospital has a meeting scheduled about Andrea and the one sliver of good news is that the family says they have a doctor with privileges at St. Luke's who is willing to go in and argue that Melanie is not medically futile. Whether that will make a difference is impossible to say at this point.
The bottom line here is that according to Andrea Clark's family, St. Luke's has not lived up to their end of the bargain and has only agreed in writing to extend Andrea's life one day beyond the old deadline of Sunday. That is absolutely outrageous, especially given the way that St. Luke's bragged about taking care of this issue to the Houston Chronicle, in an article that came out BEFORE the deal was cancelled:
"We are delighted that this issue has been resolved to the satisfaction of all parties," said Rosemary Luquire, senior vice president and chief quality officer for the St. Luke's Episcopal Health Care System. Another senior official said the hospital's position had been about "compassion and the best interests of the patient."
Now that they think the heat is off because the press has reported that this issue is resolved, they apparently still believe that pulling Andrea's life support over the objections of Andrea and her family is in the "best interests of the patient." Folks, in my book, what St. Luke's is doing to Andrea Clark is now even more appalling and reprehensible than before because they offered false hope to the family and then cruelly yanked it away.
At this point, your phone calls to St. Luke's (their contact information is here and if you call, BE POLITE) may be the only thing that can save Andrea Clark's life.
As I learn more details on this case, I will keep you informed.
* I called St. Luke's media relations people, twice, in an attempt to get their side of the story. I got the answering machine both times and although I left my email and phone number, they did not get in contact with me by the time this post ran.
"The future medical care of a severely ill heart patient at the center of a life-support controversy is up in the air again after a plan to transfer her from St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital to a facility in Illinois fell apart Friday.
But St. Luke's officials said that they will not carry out their previous plan to discontinue Andrea Clark's life-sustaining treatment on Sunday, which will be 10 days after the hospital notified her family it was invoking Texas' futile-care law.
...The family and St. Luke's agreed Thursday to transfer Clark to Glenshire Nursing & Rehab Centre, a long-term, acute-care facility in the Chicago suburb of Richton Park. St. Luke's told the family it would pay the entire cost of moving Clark, estimated at about $15,000, but only if the family decided by Thursday.
The deal was canceled Friday after Glenshire doctors realized Clark's condition was too complicated for the level of care they provide.
...Hospital officials hope to hold a meeting of Clark's doctors on Tuesday to reassess her case, Dixon said. Among those present will be Matthew Lenz, a doctor of internal medicine identified by Texas Right to Life as a candidate to take over the case. The group, which is supporting Dixon's efforts to keep her sister on life support, said Lenz does not necessarily agree the case is futile.
It is unclear what might come of the meeting — a short-term extension of Clark's life support and care; the scheduling of a new ethics committee meeting at which Lenz would advocate for Clark; or a complete revocation of plans to discontinue Clark's care.
Jerri Ward, the family's lawyer, expressed unhappiness that St. Luke's lawyers will not commit to any specific extension of the notice they already have given regarding plans to discontinue Clark's life-sustaining care. The state's futile-care law only requires that 10 days' notice be given."
Just got a letter from Andrea Clark’s other sister, Lanore Dixon:
"This afternoon, twenty minutes before Andrea was due to be transported by ambulance to the airport, her doctor (or rather, the one filling in for her doctor who has gone on vacation this week–how VERY convenient!) came into her room and informed me she would not be transferred to the Chicago facility after all. After questioning the doctor I learned that someone messed up–I don’t know which end the foul up occurred, but this all goes to show the danger of being forced to choose a healthcare facility due to pressure of an ethics committee ruling… This so called LTAC was nothing more than a nursing home with dialysis machine in the basement. They had no ability to administer the medications Andrea requires."
...While we’re grateful that St. Luke’s halted the transfer before Andrea was moved, I cannot tell you the stress this has put on our family. We are exhausted from this effort, but we will continue to fight for our sister.
St. Luke’s has agreed not to pull Andrea’s life support at least until Tuesday. On Tuesday, a committee of doctors from St. Luke’s will meet to discuss how to proceed with Andrea’s case. Andrea’s new doctor–a doctor who shares our values about the sacredness of life–will take over her care on Tuesday and will fight for her right to live. Let us all hope and pray that the committee meeting on Tuesday is chaired by doctors who have a reverence for life and not a former abortionist like the St. Luke’s ethics committee chair."
Tim over at Pro-Life Blogs has received the following email from Melanie Childers, Andrea Clark's sister:
Would you know a gentleman named John Hawkins (he is with Right Wing News)? I promised him I would call him, but the number on my cell phone for him was "restricted." I then tried to email him, but it came back to me as undeliverable (Hawkins' Note: Not sure what the problem was with the email and phone).
My family has made the decision to move our sister to the hospital in Chicago. Thank God there is someone willing to take her. And, really, it is best to get her out of Texas, because of the futile care law here.
St. Luke's played hardball with us on this issue. We were told that we could make the decision today and they would pay the entire amount of $14 thousand to move her, but if we made the decision tomorrow, they would only pay half of it, and if it were the day after tomorrow, they would pay nothing.
As you know, I'm a Democrat, but one that is against abortion. I agree with the Republicans on that issue, at least. After this experience, though, I have to tell you: I am in absolute awe of the power that the right to life people generate. I, of course, first posted on Democratic Underground, and I have to give them some credit: they let my post stand against the rules about posting something like this under the wrong topic. They also let it stand, even though it had people's (my sister's and mine) personal numbers in it. And, of course, some people there forwarded it to other blogs. And everyone there was very supportive in their comments, as well.
But the pro-life people stepped forward and just absolutely ground St. Luke's into submission on this issue. You have, without a doubt, saved my sister's life. I want you to know that. Without the pro-life/right to life people stepping in from the very first of this fight for Andrea, we would have lost. I have never in my life seen such a centered, focused and energized group of people.
You used that energy and focus to do some good in this world and you didn't care whether you were fighting for a Democrat's life or a Republican's. Now, that's conviction.
There are not enough words in the English language to tell you how grateful I and my family are, for what you people have done. When we protested at St. Luke's last Saturday, the strangers that showed up were people that had had relatives killed at St. Luke's in much the same way that St. Luke's had planned to kill my sister. These people hadn't known any better, and they hadn't known that there was such a powerful group of individuals out there, devoted to this one cause, that might be able to help them.
Because of the people in the pro-life movement, a light has been shown on the truth, for all of Texans; indeed, for all of the world to see. May God bless you for your works. And, please, do not hesitate to ask myself or my family, for anything that you may ever need in order to continue your fight for these precious lives. We are here for you and your cause, as you were here for us in ours.
Melanie Childers
No one knows what the future holds for Andrea Clark, because after all, she's still very sick. But, at least she's going to have a fighting chance to make it now. So all you people who called St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital, who worked hard to get the word out about what was happening, who did anything at all to help out on this -- give yourself a pat on the back because you really made a difference.
Between 1960 and 1999, the violent crime rate in the United States increased 226 percent. The murder rate increased 122 percent between 1963 and 1980; forcible rape increased 287 percent, robbery rose by 294 percent, and aggravated assault increased by 215 percent. Property crime ballooned as well, with burglary increasing 189 percent, larceny up 159 percent, and auto theft rising by 128 percent in the same period. This crime explosion coincided, as noted earlier, with a new leniency in punishment. While the number of violent crimes jumped from 1 million in 1960 to 2.9 million in 1970, the number of prison sentences meted out by the courts declined from 40,000 in 1960 to 37,000 in 1970. In other words, for every 100 serious crimes committed in 1960, 3.6 were punished by prison terms in 1960. By 1970, even that paltry figure had declined -- to 1.3 prison terms per 100 crimes committed. -- P.8
Moreover, he displayed the classic error of the liberal world view -- the tendency to perceive criminals as sympathetic representatives of minority and poor communities rather than predators in those neighborhoods. -- P.15
James Q. Wilson and George Keiling, in their famous 1982 Atlantic magazine article entitled "Broken Windows," observed:
"If a window in a building is broken and left unrepaired, all the rest of the windows will soon be broken. One unrepaired broken window is a signal that no one cares, and so breaking more windows costs nothing....
The citizen who fears the ill-smelling drunk, the rowdy teenager, or the importunate beggar is not merely expressing his distaste for unseemly behavior; he is also giving voice to a bit of folk wisdom that happens to be a correct generalization -- namely, that serious crime flourishes in areas in which disorderly behavior goes unchecked. The unchecked panhandler is, in effect, the first broken window." -- P.16
Progess in white attitudes toward African Americans was dramatic and profound in the post-civil rights era. Only 20 percent of whites told pollsters that black people "lived in their neighborhood" in 1964. By 1994, that number had jumped to 61 percent. Only 18 percent of whites in 1964 said they had black friends; and only 9 percent said they had "good friends" who were black. By 1989, 66 percent of whites claimed to have black friends, and by 1994, 73 percent said blacks were among their "good friends." -- P.20
As the nation continues to debate what to do about our southern border, I thought I would point out a piece of informaton I found in a cache of documents released by the Pentagon in early March. In connection with a lawsuit brought by the Associated Press, the Pentagon released thousands of pages of documents transcribed during tribunal hearings for the hundreds of terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There is a lot of interesting information in those documents, including the allegations against one detainee who was caught while trying to sneak across the Mexican border.
...The U.S. government alleges that the detainee “attempted to be smuggled into the United States” and “traveled with forged travel documents, including a passport and other travel documents.” The detainee admits that he was caught while attempting to illegally enter the U.S., but claims that he “was going to find a job to make some money.”
...The government alleges, “The Detainee left Pakistan ten months previous to his detention by paying a smuggler in Pakistan twenty-five thousand dollars (US) to be smuggled into the U.S.” The detainee does not deny this allegation, but claims that the fee “was paid in Pakistani currency, one million rupies, about sixteen to eighteen thousand dollars. This would get paid when I got to the United States.” He adds, “My father owns an oil tanker, which he would sell to make the payment. Also, it was only eight months after I left Pakistan to when I was captured.”
Maybe it's just me, but when someone suspected by the government of terrorist activity pays $25,000 to a smuggler to get him across the border, it sets off a few alarm bells. Sure, he says he's just looking for work. But, don't you suspect that his "work" would have involved a suicide belt or car bomb? I mean, it's not as if he was going to make all that money back doing manual labor in a meat packing plant or picking oranges.
And is it not ironic we have this incredibly intrusive, overly bureaucratic security system that's designed to prevent terrorists from flying into the country, but our border security is so lax that tens of thousands of illegals just walk across the border into our country every week? Yet today, more than four years out from 9/11, almost all the Democrats in the Senate and more than a few Republicans oppose getting tough on the border unless we can simultaneously find a way to allow "half of Mexico" to legally pour into our country so they can pick onions and do construction work on the cheap.
These Senators have priorities that are out of whack and it's putting all the rest of us in danger. For the moment, they should forget about a guest worker program and a "path to citizenship" for the illegals that are already here. Instead they should build a wall, crack down on employers of illegals, and make sure we have the resources needed to patrol the border and enforce our laws. Then, once that's done, and we can be reasonably certain that our border isn't wide open for terrorists, drug runners, and illegals, then Congress can try to hammer out an agreement on the "undocumented workers" that are already here and a guest worker program.
That makes perfect sense and it's the path the Senate should go down instead of playing petty political games while this country's borders are unsecured. Everybody, on both sides of the political aisle, seems to agree that we need to get the border under control and increase immigration enforcement, so let's get that done and leave the controversial aspects of immigration law to be debated later, after we no longer have to worry about terrorists making their way across our barely watched borders.
Excerpt Of The Day: What Would A Day Without Illegal Immigration Look Like?
"Perhaps the May 1st boycott should give America a glimpse into "A Day Without ILLEGAL Immigration."
What would that May 1st look like without illegal immigration? There would be no one to smuggle across our southern border the heroin, marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamines that plague the United States, reducing the U.S. supply of meth that day by 80%. The lives of 12 U.S. citizens would be saved who otherwise die a violent death at the hands of murderous illegal aliens each day. Another 13 Americans would survive who are otherwise killed each day by uninsured drunk driving illegals. Our hospital emergency rooms would not be flooded with everything from gunshot wounds, to anchor babies, to imported diseases to hangnails, giving American citizens the day off from standing in line behind illegals. Eight American children would not suffer the horror as a victim of a sex crime.
On the negative side, the price of a pound of tomatoes might go up from $0.79 to $0.80. That is unless you have a garden. But I'm guessing that the Mexican drug lords are not taking May 1st off. Neither will the 11,000 illegal invaders that pour over our border every other day of the year." -- Republican Congressman Steve King
The attention the Andrea Clark case has gotten has finally started to pay some dividends. In other words, give yourself a pat on the back, folks, because your phone calls may have saved a woman's life. First off, from Hyscience:
"The family learned of a facility in Illinois that is willing to accept Andrea and offer her the opportunity to live, an expensive move that would require Andrea to be far removed from her family.
However, placing corporate greed ahead of all patient interests and the interests and wishes of the family, St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital has just notified the family that they are willing to pay the almost $17,000 to move Andrea to Illinois if they will immediately - that's TODAY, move Andrea out of St. Lukes to the Illinois facility. If the family waits until tomorrow to decide, St. Lukes will only pay half. And if the family can't make a decision by tomorrow, the hospital may consider to pay absolutely nothing. In other words, the hospital is attempting to force Andrea out of the hospital in order to stop the financial drain of the cost of her care."
Here's more from Melanie Childers, Andrea's sister, via the Lone Star Times
"Yes, it’s true. We don’t want Andrea to be moved so far away from her family in Texas, but we are so frightened that another Texas hospital will start the futility process on her again, I think we have no other choice. So, here we are, in Texas, having to move our sister to a hospital across the country. One way or another, I guess, this will break our family. What a horrible decision to have to make."
The attorney believes finding a new doctor is better for the patient than enduring the "mad scramble" to find a different facility – plus the hospital normally charges the patient for the move.
Ward said she and the family are exploring both options at this time.
Lanore Dixon, one of four sisters of Clark who live in Texas, has been protesting outside St. Luke's.
Dixon said there's a possibility a long-term acute-care facility in Chicago would agree to take Clark – "but we don't have any family there," Dixon told WND, "and we think it's terrible that somebody in her shape should have to be in a place without any family."
Mentioning the new-doctor option, Dixon said she wasn't totally comfortable with that since she's "lost some confidence" in St. Luke's Hospital.
"It would be ideal if we could find another hospital in Texas that would take Andrea," Dixon said.
Stressing that she didn't want to "demonize" anyone, Dixon commented: "The doctors at this hospital are trained to think a certain way, and they have a different perspective on life than I do. They don't share the perspective that the time that you go is between you and God."
I also talked to Melanie Childers again tonight. First of all, she said the "right wing people" are responsible for the deal St. Luke's is offering and the Illinois facility that agreed to take her sister. For that, she's grateful.
On the one hand, she's very frustrated by the situation. Andrea said,
"Even a condemned man gets 12 jurors and if he's found guilty, he gets 10 years of appeals."
But, her sister was given less than 10 days. In addition to that, Andrea no longer trusts St. Luke's Hospital to look after her sister's welfare and she's worried that if Andrea were to end up in another Texas hospital, she might be declared medically futile again. So, the ideal situation would be to get her into a hospital in a nearby state, so that her family would have easy access to her. Illinois is a long way from Houston and the idea of having her sister in intensive care, far away from her home and family, is naturally very upsetting, but unfortunately, it may be the only option they really have.
Melanie told me the family is going to be discussing St. Luke's offer to pay for the transportation to the Illinois facility tonight and if they accept it, she believes that Andrea will be moved tomorrow.
That's where the story is at right now. As I learn more details, I'll provide them for you.
1) Good Policies Are Good Politics: Too often these days, Republicans will go along with policies that are bad for the country, simply because of polling data that is, as often as not, heavily slanted towards the Democrats. But, what they forget is that the new media may not be as big as the liberal controlled MSM, but, over time, the blogosphere and talk radio are able to get out the conservative message. So, if the policies Republicans support are worthwhile, eventually the Republians on the right side of the issues will get the credit they deserve. Conversely, if the policies Republicans support aren't worthwhile, those same forces in the new media won't let the voters forget it. That why, more than ever before, good policies make for good politics.
2) America Should Always Come First: Whether we're talking about international treaties, foreign policy, or even illegal immigration, Republicans should NEVER put the interests of foreigners above those of their own countrymen. Americans should always come first.
3) Remember That There Is No Such Thing As Free Money: The money Washington spends doesn't come out of a Golden Goose or fall from the sky. To the contrary, it comes right out of the pockets of the American people and they will miss it dearly. It's money that people could otherwise spend on retirement, grocery bills, medicine or their kid's college education. That's why the government should be restrained in their spending habits, keep taxes low, and avoid running up a debt. The government isn't spending "free" money, it's spending money that people worked hard for and earned, and a lot of Republicans seem to have lost sight of that.
4) Compromise, But Don't Capitulate: Compromise is a necessity in politics, but Republicans shouldn't engage in compromises that don't significantly advance the conservative agenda. It's not about "getting things done," it's about "getting things done that are good for the country." And if the price of getting a bill passed is giving liberals almost everything they want, then that price is too high to pay.
5) Fight Back Harder: There has to be a happy medium between the Democrats' knee-jerk "oppositionalism" to all things Republican and the lackluster salvos the Republicans lob at the Dems. As often as not these days, the GOP seems to lose on issues because they're so reluctant to take the fight to Democrats. Bush's "new tone" was the right policy after 8 years of Clinton, but it's just not working any more and that's why the intensity of the GOP's attacks on Democrats needs to be ramped up a few notches.
6) Discipline Republicans Who Stray On Key Issues: Because there's no discipline in the Senate, on key issue after key issue, we've ended up with a cabal of RINOs teaming up with the Democrats to push liberal policies that are bad for the country. Yet, none of these RINOs ever seem to pay any sort of a price for thwarting the conservative agenda. That needs to change.
7) Stop Getting Involved In Primary Elections: When President Bush and the National Republican Senatorial Committee back RINOS like Arlen Specter or Lincoln Chafee in Republican primaries, it sends the wrong message. The Senators are in effect, being told that they can thwart the will of the majority of Republicans without consequence while a large portion of the base is given the impression that Republicans in Washington are unsympathetic to their views. In my book, if a sitting Republican Senator can't even win a primary without a lot of help from the Party, he'll probably be more of a hindrance than an asset over the long-term anyway.
8) You Can't Beat Democrats At Their Own Game: Republicans need to understand that they will never be able to dole out more pork than Democrats, promise more government benefits than Democrats, or out-pander Democrats, so they shouldn't even try. Instead, let the Dems try to out-tax-cut us, be tougher on national security, or be more willing to cut spending. Make the Democrats play our game instead of playing to their strengths.
9) There Is No Such Thing As An "Off Year:"' In the age of the new media and the 24 hour news cycle, there are no more "off years." Politicians are now ALWAYS under the microscope and they simply cannot afford to put their feet up and relax or worse yet, spend their time catering to special interests while expecting to throw a few sops to the base right before the elections. In other words, in these days and times, the election cycle never truly ends.
10) If The Base Isn't Happy, You're In Trouble: George Bush's approval rating is in the low thirties and Republicans in Congress are even less popular. Yet, if the Washington GOP had done nothing but keep the base and Republican leaning independents happy, their polling numbers would at least be in the upper forties and they'd be on track to gain, not lose seats in November. That doesn't mean that the GOP should do anything and everything the base wants, but there's a lesson in those numbers: keeping your base happy is the foundation of all political success.
When Socialists And Monkeys Unite, Nothing Good Will Come Of It
This is such an unbelievably dumb idea, even for a bunch of European socialists, that I actually checked around to make sure it wasn't a hoax. It's not...
"The Spanish Socialist Party will introduce a bill in the Congress of Deputies calling for "the immediate inclusion of (simians) in the category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings." The PSOE's justification is that humans share 98.4% of our genes with chimpanzees, 97.7% with gorillas, and 96.4% with orangutans.
The party will announce its Great Ape Project at a press conference tomorrow. An organization with the same name is seeking a UN declaration on simian rights which would defend ape interests "the same as those of minors and the mentally handicapped of our species."
So, if this bill actually passes and simians are given the "moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings," does that mean monkeys can vote in Spain? Can't you just see all the politicians running ads that show them holding bananas & kissing baboons? Then there's nudity. I mean, people can't walk around the street nude, so does this mean the chimps would have to start wearing pants?
That would certainly make trips to Spain interesting, wouldn't it? You'd have gorillas in jeans picking nits off of each other in the middle of the freeway, chimps hurling poo at passers-by -- ooh, and they'd all have to live off of welfare and have social workers assigned to them. Hmmm, so maybe it makes sense that socialists are proposing this idea after all.
Excerpt Of The Day: Kicking The Can Down The Road On Illegal Immigration
Illegal aliens come into our country knowing they are illegal. Why should I care about regularizing their status? I can see the (substantial) downside of it, in terms of encouraging more illegal immigration and all the social problems that attend that. But what is the upside that I should care about that supposedly outweighs the downside? To be blunt, I don’t care about the struggles they face. I didn’t ask them to come, I haven’t asked them to stay, and they came knowing what the deal was, so I have a hard time listening to the drivel about how they’re getting screwed.
When I was a kid, I used to buy the $1 upper deck seats at Shea and then try to sneak down and grab an unoccupied $4 field-level box seat. When the usher inevitably came to shoo me away, I didn’t protest. I was doing something I shouldn’t have, and I ran the risk knowing that I might get sent back to the cheap seats or even kicked out of the ballpark – the latter being almost unheard of. (In fact, the reason so many urchins did what I was doing was because the ONLY sanction was to be sent back to the seat you would have had anyway.)
If we secured the border, ended visa fraud, and prosecuted employers who hire illegals, that would make coming and staying here much less inviting. Many illegals would leave, so the problem would be more manageable. Why do we need to do anything more than that at this point? Why can’t we just do those things and take another look at this in five years? The usual Washington solution – see, e.g., Iran, tax reform, social security reform, entitlement reform, election fraud, border security, etc., etc., etc. – is to kick the can down the road. Why not with this where it actually makes sense to do that? -- Andy McCarthy
Today I'm writing about oil and gasoline (er . . . petrol) prices. Just in time, Daniel Drezner asks a great question:
So, here's my question to readers... why is a spike in gas prices considered such a political crisis?
[You're the political scientist... why don't you have an explanation?--ed.] I have one, but it's a bit loopy: gasoline is a unique commodity in three ways. First, it's tied into the politics of the Middle East, which allows media coverage to always give it that extra political twist... though during the Cold War, the only sources for platinum were the Soviet Union and South Africa, but no one fretted about the political implications.
Second, oil is one of the few commodities that's subjected to a supplier cartel... though I don't hear anyone besides myself complain about, say, the diamond cartel.
Third (and by far the loopiest), gasoline is the one commodity in which Americans of both genders possess close to full information. It's therefore the one commodity that might mobilize the mass public into seeking a political solution.
I place very little confidence in my explanation, however: readers are welcomed to chime in.
My thoughts:
1) Most Americans buy gas at least once a week
2) They buy a lot of it
3) They buy it by itself--if the price of milk or orange juice rises, it gets lost in the overall grocery bill, which is still falling in real terms.
4) The price is visible and because demand is almost completely inelastic, little effort is made at price discrimination--there are no coupons for cut price gas.
5) There is relatively little variation in gas prices compared to, say, generic food/drugs vs. name brands.
6) Gas is heavily implicated in other consumption. When the price of milk rises, you stop drinking milk and start drinking calcium-fortified OJ (or vice versa). When the price of gas rises, you stop going to the movies and start watching the science channel.
7) There are very few good substitutes for gasoline consumption.
8) It is relatively difficult to cut back on gasoline consumption, because commutes and things like grocery shopping make up so much of the total, and people only purchase new cars once every few years, if that.
In short, people have to buy it; they have to buy large amounts of it frequently; it's very difficult and painful to economize on; and the cost is highly visible. That's what makes it different from groceries or furniture. Or anyway, that's my guess.
"It's time for you to get to work, Snowman. By the way, that's your new nickname," President Bush told Tony Snow. "Nobody likes me anymore, but you have to spin things so everybody thinks I'm the super-coolest person ever. And you have to convince all the press to only write nice things about me. So you do a good job or you'll end up like Scott McClellan - fat!"
"I'll do what I can," Tony answered, "but you try and stay out of trouble. I don't want this job to be any harder than it already is."
"Hey, trouble is my middle name!" Bush answered and then thought for a moment. "Wait, my middle name starts with a 'w'. What is it? Wilhelm?"
"Just focus on not screwing anything up and I'll handle the press," Tony assured him. He then headed out to the press room where all the reporters were waiting.
"So, are you the new White House Press Secretary?" a reporter asked.
"First off," Tony stated, "I'm already a hundred times the journalist of all you hacks added together, so, instead of answering your moronic queries, I'm just going to state everything you need to know and you'll jot it all down and report that. Are we clear?"
"Mr. Snow, we need--" a reporter started to say, but then screamed in pain as he fell to the ground.
"Now, one thing you need to know," Tony said, "is that I can now shock you through your press passes. This wasn't my idea; it was done by Homeland Security. Now, on to politics. While there are many troubles in Iraq, it's going much better than you shills report. Progress is being made daily. With Iran, many options are being looked at, but nothing has been decided on. Finally, the Democrats are all morons and you waste time reporting on anything they do or say. I think that covers everything."
"What about how Karl Rove will be--" A horde of screaming demons crashed through the ceiling, grabbed the reporter, and flew off.
"It should be mentioned," Tony said, "that questions about Karl Rove will cause screeching demons to come after you. That's out of my hands."
"And there are also reports that secret police are taking away anyone who questions the White House," a reporter stated. "What is your reaction?"
Some men in black ran into the room, grabbed the reporter, and dragged her away.
"Next question," Tony said in a bored voice.
"War murder and oil because Bush bad!" Helen Thomas cackled.
Tony Snow made a motion to some men in white in the back of the room. They came forward and gently walked Helen Thomas out of the press room.
"Are they taking her to a nursing home?" a reporter asked.
"That or they're going to tie her up and leave her in an abandoned warehouse," Tony answered. "Either way, I don't care."
A truck crashed through the side of the room. "Trouble, Tony!" Bush yelled as he got out of the driver seat. "I may have just been involved in an arm robbery and this truck may or may nor be stolen. Anyway, spin it all to make it sound good."
"I thought we agreed you'd avoid misadventures until your polls are up!" Tony said.
Bush opened the back of the truck. "I tried; really, I did." A bunch of Mexicans came out the back.
"Are you smuggling Mexicans across the border?" Tony asked.
"The less you know, the better." Bush started dousing the truck in gasoline. "I'm going to take care of the evidence; you continue with your press conference."
"I want you all to ignore the scene over there and focus on me," Tony commanded the press. "I'm going to use this blackboard behind me to give you all a lecture on good journalism... since you guys really need it. Let's get started."
"I don't need to be lectured about journalism from someone from FOX News!" David Gregory shouted. "I'm David Gregory! I--" David Gregory burst into flames.
"By the way," Tony said, "the electrified press passes have a few kinks in them and sometimes explode. Then again, maybe that's more of a feature than a bug."
Panicked, Gregory ran into the truck setting it on fire.
"Since this room is starting to burn down," one reporter said, "can we skip the lecture?"
"That might be smart. Oh, and I should tell you that, as part of the deal of the White House hiring me, FOX is filming this all for a reality show. So, if in the future, you find the press room filled with snakes or you get locked in an underground bunker, I warned you."
The reporters fled the room.
"Good job for your first day," Bush said. "So, what now?"
Tony looked at the burning truck. "I think I'm going to a bar."
"There's a list of nearest bars in your 'Welcome to the White House Staff' basket." Bush looked around the room which was all quickly catching fire. "This isn't going to burn itself out, is it?"
This satire was used with the permission of Frank J. from IMAO.
I spoke to Andrea's sister, Melanie Childers, again today to get an update on what's happening. To begin with, she said that a lot of pro-life people have been calling the hospital and she thinks it's having a real effect on them. She said that she hopes people keep it up. (The contact page for St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital is here. If you call, no matter how upset you may be, make sure to be polite).
I asked Melanie if the family had talked to Andrea since our last conversation. She said they had and that Andrea had asked for a whopper from Burger King =). But, she said when they told her that the hospital was going to pull the plug on her on Sunday, she became, as you'd imagine, very upset and angry.
Melanie promised to keep me updated on what's going on and as I know more, you'll know more. But, the deadline is still Sunday and unless something changes, that will be the last day of Andrea Clark's life.
Other than calling them, praying, and trying to get the word out, I'm not sure what else we can do right now.
PS #1: I confirmed with Melanie that it's "Clark," not "Clarke." Andrea said she tends to errantly slap an "e' on her sister's last name for some reason.
PS #2: There have been conflicting reports about whether Andrea can actually speak. Melanie said that she's had a trach and because of that, she has to mouth her words. So, she can clearly make her wishes known, but she can't actually speak out loud.
Update #1: For anyone who hasn't heard this story before, here's a short recap:
Andrea Clark is an insured, conscious patient at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital in Houston who is going to be pulled off dialysis and a respirator on Sunday, against her wishes and the wishes of her family, because she has a heart condition and the hospital has deemed her treatment to be medically futile.
Her family and lawyer are trying to change the hospital's mind and are also trying to get her transferred before the deadline, but so far, they don't have another hospital willing to take her. So, unless something changes, Andrea Clark has until Sunday to live.
Tony Snow Was Right. Racism Isn't A Big Deal Anymore
Over at The Raw Story, they're trying to make hay with some comments Tony Snow made about racism back in 2003:
"Here's the unmentionable secret," Snow said on an October 2003 edition of Fox News Sunday, "racism isn't that big a deal anymore." Snow argued that "no sensible person supports" racism, arguing that the problem is "quickly becoming an ugly memory."
"Polls find young blacks less likely to call racism America's No. 1 issue. A Time/CNN poll found 89 percent of black teens consider racism in their own lives to be "a small problem" or "not a problem at all." Twice as many black teens as white believe that "failure to take advantage of available opportunities" is a bigger problem for blacks than discrimination."
Does racism still exist? Absolutely. Are some people's lives negatively impacted by racism? Absolutely. But, is racism a major impediment in the lives of Americans today? Not at all and as you've just read, it's not just me saying that, an overwhelming majority of young, black Americans feel the same way.
"A book hyped by major media as documenting a progressive revolution of "blogs" and political power, DAILY KOS 'CRASHING THE GATE,' has sold only 3,630 copies since its release last month, according to NIELSEN's BOOKSCAN.
[NIELSEN claims only 2,062 copies of DAILY KOS have been purchased at the retail level; the rest coming through 'discount' outlets.]"
On the one hand, it's really nice to see Kos's book nosedive into the pavement.
Kos is a genius at building traffic, but he's not-so-smart when it comes to politics. Here's a guy who has raised hundeds of thousands of dollars through his blog and he has managed to funnel it to loser after loser after loser. Moreover, Kos has hurt the Democratic Party by helping to convince them that the path to success is to get angry about Bush and veer off to the left. If Karl Rove had came up with a scheme to use the liberal blogosphere to make it less likely that Democrats would get elected, he couldn't have picked a better Pied Piper for left-wing dopes than Kos.
On the other hand, since Kos is the 800 pound gorilla of the political blogosphere and he can't sell books, it makes other bloggers look much less appealing to publishers. That's bad news for the rest of us hoping to produce books that will turn into decent sized paydays down the line.
So, is there a little schandenfreude here? Sure, but just a little...
"Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) rejected an increase in gas taxes to pay for transportation improvements, prompting a leading Republican ally in the Senate to accuse the governor Tuesday of pandering to national anxiety about rising fuel prices.
On Washington Post Radio's "Ask the Governor" program, Kaine said "the right way to solve this problem is to do it without a gas tax."
Senate Transportation Chairman Martin E. Williams (R-Newport News) said he was "sickened" by Kaine's comments. They were "a wimp-out," he said, which would undermine the Senate's support for a tax of 6 cents a gallon on terminal operators and would give comfort to Republicans in the House of Delegates, who have refused to accept tax increases to pay for transportation improvements."
With gas prices absolutely soaring out of sight, could there possibly be a worse time to add on a new gas tax? Yet, we have a DEMOCRATIC Governor doing the right thing and promising to veto the tax as a REPUBLICAN is flipping out about it.
You know, Bush Derangement Syndrome has been much discussed, but these outbreaks of RINOitis are getting to be almost as bad of a problem. On the upside for the left, by 2009 or so, their BDS problems should start to die down, but RINOitis is like the common cold: there appears to be no cure on the horizon.
Your Right To Avoid Grievous Bodily Harm Ends The Moment You Break Into A House
In my book, when a thug wielding a "plank of wood" breaks into your house by knocking the door down and yells "I'm going to kill you," there is no such thing as using "too much force" to stop him. Unfortunately, they don't seem to agree in Australia.
After the aforementioned intruder smashed his way into the home, the resident grabbed a baseball bat and defended himself. For this, he has been charged with a crime:
"Darryl Stoneham, 37, from Doonside, in Sydney's west, faced Blacktown Local Court today charged with malicious assault inflicting grievous bodily harm.
The charge related to an alleged attack on David Kuusik, 38, who, according to police facts, broke into Stoneham's home last night.
In documents tended to the court, police alleged two other people at the house attempted to stop Mr Kuusik entering the premises about 8.35pm (AEST) while Stoneham called triple-0.
But the documents said Mr Kuusik knocked a door off its hinges and entered the house brandishing a plank of wood, which Stoneham claimed was being swung around.
Stoneham then picked up a baseball bat and began swinging at Mr Kuusik, striking him a number of times "above the shoulders but below the head", police allege.
Police allege Stoneham told them Mr Kuusik yelled "I'm going to kill you" as he tried to enter the house.
The two men are believed to have been known to each other before the incident."
Any intruder who's in your home and conscious is a grave potential threat to your continued existence and should be treated as such. That's why this guy did exactly the right thing by continuing to pummel this guy after he had been knocked to the ground.
For all he knew, the thug could have had a pistol or knife strapped to his leg. Maybe one moment, the guy could have looked bloody and out of it and the next thing you know, Stoneham could have been hit with a bullet to the chest or a knife to the back. Heck, maybe the guy could have just gotten up, grabbed the plank, and gone to work. Who knows?
That's why Stoneham was right not to take any changes and the police were wrong to charge him with a crime. A man's home is his castle and if you storm a man's castle, he has every right to use any and all measures to remove the threat you pose to him. That includes whaling on you with a baseball bat while you're down.
The results of RWN's 2006 demographics survey (via Blogads) are now live. Here are a few details that caught my eye:
-- 88.4% of RWN's readers are male.
-- Roughly 65% of RWN's readers make $60,000 a year or more.
-- 93% of RWN's readers have "some college" or better.
-- 60% of you have contributed to a cause/campaign in the last 6 months.
-- Roughly 62% have "written or called any politician at the state, local, or national level"
-- Roughly 66% have signed a petition.
-- 16% of RWN's readers have worked for a political party.
-- 16% of you have their own blog.
-- Wondering why I don't do podcasts? Well, wonder no more. 84% of RWN's readers have never listened to a podcast (and that's despite the fact that I've linked a few).
-- The political breakdown of RWN's readers? 75% Republican, 11% Independent, 9% Libertarian, about 2% Democrat, and believe it or not, 2% apolitical.
Everything you need to know about the Amnesty bill meeting that Bush, McCain, and some of the other pro-illegal Republicans in the Senate attended is right here:
"I'm not in the habit of patting the president on the back and sending him accolades, but I have to say that this meeting that we just had, I have to pat the president on the back," said Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat. "This was really, I thought, a good, good meeting."
The last time Harry Reid was that happy with Bush was right after he nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and we all know what a fantastic move that turned out to be.
This compromise Bush, McCain, Kennedy, & Company are working on is bad for the Republican Party and bad for America. That's something that the Republicans in the House seem to understand. They've got a great bill in the works and are, at least for the moment, saying the right things:
"This idea that was being kicked around the Senate about providing some sort of amnesty for those who have been here five years or more, I just think it was a very big mistake," House Majority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said yesterday. "You are just inviting more people to come."
If Bush and the Republicans in the Senate don't have the common sense to go along with the House and do the right thing on illegal immigration -- which is to build a wall, crack down on employers, and get tough with the illegals who are here to discourage more illegals from coming -- then perhaps those of us who believe our immigration laws should be enforced can fight them to a standstill politically and keep them from doing the wrong thing for America.
If we do that, we have a better chance to win on this issue long-term because time is on our side, not theirs. The more people become informed about this issue, the more illegal aliens rallies there are, and the more the GOP gets worried about their demoralized and disenchanted base, the better chance we have to get a bill that puts the interests of American people ahead of the interests of "undocumented workers," the crooked businesses that knowingly employ them, and the Democrats who see potential votes every time they look at illegals.
1) Classic movies I've never seen include The Godfather, Raging Bull,Citizen Kane & Deliverance.
2) A rule I picked up from reading about Robert Ringer talking about real estate also applies to the blogosphere. It's not just about making money, it's about getting paid and when you're dealing with dodgy people, sometimes those two things may be mutually exclusive.
3) Here's a little secret: if we could hang on to the Senate, I'd rather see Lincoln Chafee lose to a Democrat than win.
4) Same goes for John McCain, although he's not up for reelection this year. Republicans would be better off without him and out of the mix, even if it cost us a seat.
5) I wonder how many other professional bloggers there are in the whole country? Do you think there are more than a dozen? I wonder...
6) When a foreign government or group says they want to kill you, you should take them at their word.
7) Our "special relationship" with Britain may end the moment that Tony Blair leaves office, so be prepared.
8) Know how long it has been since I've eaten a really good pizza? About 13 years. Seriously.
9) Am I the only white conservative who found the Autobiography of Malcolm X to be inspirational?
10) Why should Donald Rumsfeld spend his time doing a press conference for a bunch of liberal MSM jerks who are going to distort everything he has to say anyway and bury any good news, when he could make history by doing a press conference with a bunch of conservative bloggers?
11) Not only am I tired of ripping on Bush and the Republicans in Congress, I'm tired of reading other Republicans who're ripping on Bush and the Republicans in Congress. Come on, you Republicans in Washington, how about giving us conservatives a little more good news to work with so we can write more nice things about you?
12) America's best allies? Britain, Israel, and Australia.
13) I don't consider Seymour Hersh to be any more of a credible source than the National Enquirer. I think it's entirely possible that he makes things up out of whole cloth, Jayson Blair style.
14) Sexiest foreign accent for a woman? Irish.
15) The biggest mistake people make when it comes to economics issues? It's looking at the "seen" short term effects and disregarding the "unseen" longer term effects (Example: Looking at the steel worker jobs saved by steel tariffs, but disregarding the jobs lost in other industries because they had to pay a higher price for steel.)
16) Want to know which way to turn just about anything? Then remember lefty loosey, righty tighty.
17) Even if you think global warming is real and mankind is causing it, there's no point in worrying about it since no one has yet come up with a practical plan to deal with it.
18) If I were stuck on a desert island and could only have one video game, I'd want it to be Starcraft.
19) Know why a lot of bloggers who have great traffic make thousands of dollars less than they should each year? Because they think of blogging as a hobby, not a business. If you have decent traffic, you should treat the business side of blogging like a business, even if you do consider it to be a hobby. Why? Because it pays.
20) Would you rather live in the United States, at the income you're currently making, or be a multi-millionaire who could never set foot in the US again? Personally, I'd rather live in the US.
21) I've never seen a woman with a tattoo who wouldn't have looked better without it.
22) "It's likely that whatever challenges you have faced in your life currently could have been avoided but some better decisions upstream." -- Anonymous
Love that quote.
23) A lot of people seem to think the voters are in an anti-Republican mood. But actually, they're in an anti-incumbent mood. That still works against Republicans, since they control the House and the Senate, but it's better to have the voters wanting to, "throw all the bums out," than just the Republicans.
Tyler Drumheller: The Latest Disgruntled Hack In A Line Of Disgruntled Hacks
It's like clockwork. Every few months, some disgruntled hack with an ax to grind turns up and vomits up some chunk of information, as often as not, old information, that is supposed to discredit the Bush Administration.
Then the liberals in the media latch onto it, blow it up way out of proportion, and try to bury anything that might contradict the anti-Bush meme.
A few days later, after conservatives in the new media drill holes through the story, the MSM belatedly reports the new facts and slinks away from the story like craven jackals, leaving it to be gnawed upon by liberal bloggers and the MSM again, a few months later, when there isn't quite enough anti-Bush news floating around.
"A retired CIA official has accused the Bush administration of ignoring intelligence indicating that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and no active nuclear program before the United States-led coalition invaded it, CBS News said Sunday.
Tyler Drumheller, the former highest-ranking CIA officer in Europe, told "60 Minutes" that the administration "chose to ignore" good intelligence, the network said in a posting on its Web site.
Drumheller said that, before the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003, the White House "ignored crucial information" from Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, that indicated Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
Drumheller said that, when then-CIA Director George Tenet told President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other high-ranking officials that Sabri was providing information, his comments were met with excitement that proved short-lived.
"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," Drumheller is quoted as saying. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "
Drumheller said the administration officials wanted no more information from Sabri because: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."
CBS said the White House declined to respond to the charge and that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said Sabri was just one source and therefore not reliable."
So Iraq's foreign minister told the White House that Iraq had no WMDs and they ignored him? Shocking! Scandalous! Wrong!
Here's the lede that MSNBC, of course, buried in the article:
"Another key issue was the nuclear question: How far away was Saddam from having a bomb? The CIA said if Saddam obtained enriched uranium, he could build a nuclear bomb in "several months to a year." Sabri said Saddam desperately wanted a bomb, but would need much more time than that. Sabri was more accurate.
On the issue of chemical weapons, the CIA said Saddam had stockpiled as much as "500 metric tons of chemical warfare agents" and had "renewed" production of deadly agents. Sabri said Iraq had stockpiled weapons and had "poison gas" left over from the first Gulf War. Both Sabri and the agency were wrong."
So according to Sabri, Saddam desperately wanted a nuke, had massive stockpiles of chemical weapons, "and had 'renewed' production of deadly agents."
If the press treated the Bush administration fairly, which they don't, they'd admit Sabri actually STRENGTHENED the case of people who said Iraq had WMDs, not undercut it. But CNN, like most of the mainstream media, puts partisanship ahead of accurately reporting facts. All you're getting when read these sort of articles from sources like CNN is a kinder, gentler version of the Democratic Party spin -- and they sit around scratching their heads and trying to figure out why people don't trust the mainstream media anymore.
We Don't Need Massive Deportations. We Need To Crack Down On The Employers
"Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic. It's just not going to work. You can hear people out there hollering it's going to work. It's not going to work. It just -- and so therefore, what do we do with people who are here? And this is one of the really important questions Congress is going to have to deal with." -- George Bush
Know what isn't unrealistic? Cracking down on employers with heavy fines and jail time for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. If you do that, they'll stop hiring illegals. If they stop hiring illegals, most of the illegal aliens who are here will go home. Moreover, most of the people who would otherwise come to the United States illegally in order to get work, won't bother.
You make it so that the illegals can't get jobs, you get rid of most of the illegals. It's really just that simple.
*** Update #1 *** The Schindler family is now in the game. Excellent!
The Terri Schindler Schiavo, Center for Health Care Ethics Inc., Throws Support Behind Family of Andrea Clark
Washington, D.C. - Houston's St. Luke's Hospital is giving the family of Andrea Clark until April 30th to find another facility to take Clark as a patient or doctors, under direction of an ethics committee, will remove her from life support.
Clark, who underwent open-heart surgery in January and then developed bleeding on the brain in February, is NOT brain dead and is NOT in a coma. According to her family Clark has also expressed her wish to live.
The Foundation is appalled at the decision St. Luke's Hospital has made to give up on a patient, especially on the recommendation of an ethics committee that seems to have more than just what's best for the patient in mind.
"We at The Foundation, Center for Health Care Ethics are seeing a growing number of hospital ethics committees emerging in our nation at an alarming rate," said Bobby Schindler.
"The story of Andrea Clark demonstrates the dangers of these unelected, self-appointed, and anonymous committees that are rushing to remove the care from patients in private, without a public hearing or any type of appeal.
"This is happening despite the fact that the treatment the patients are receiving, as in Andrea's case, is working."
I just spoke to Andrea's other sister Lenore Dixon from Fort Worth. Here is the story. Andrea, who is 54 years old, was a blue baby. She has had health problems all her life, but has led a full life. She was married and has a son. Recently she had complications from heart surgery.
After her latest operation she was put on a ventilator and life support, but was able to communicate through lip reading and writing. Her sister says she had no problem chatting and communicating. On Feb. 16th the doctor informed the sisters that Andrea had requested to be taken off life support. The sisters gathered on the 18th to their sister's bedside and Lenore asked Andrea if she wanted to be taken off life support. Lenore says that Andrea wrote, "I do not want to die. I want to live." The sisters informed the doctor of this. The doctor said that an ethics committee would meet and decide. A few days ago the sisters received notice from the ethic committee that they had decided to declare the "medical futility" of continued treatment for the patient.
They will discontinue life support on the 30th of this month unless something can be done. Lenore told me that the Texas Right To Life Committee and other pro-life groups are helping them find a pro-life doctor of internal medicine. If he has privileges at St. Lukes and declares Andrea "fit to live," then the life support will be continued.
As her sister Melanie pointed out about Andrea, "She has suffered no brain damage to the parts of her brain responsible for thought and reason, or speech. She has only suffered loss of some motor control."
...I asked Lanore why she thinks the Doctors decided that Andrea should be taken off life support. She said "You know Anrdea has many friends and is part of about a dozen online crochet groups. She loves crafts. But to someone who downhill skis I suppose that doesn't look too exciting. I think the Doctors think her life sucks."
*** Update #3: *** Melanie Childers has posted again at the Democratic Underground. Here's part of what she had to say:
We have an attorney who is working very hard for my sister. I don't know if she will be successful or not, because others in her shoes have not been. The courts tend to side with the big corporations in these cases. The law is the law, is what they say.
The Right to Life people are very good at this. They know how to fight this, and they are wonderful. But there is only so much that they can do. These people were called late Good Friday, when we got the notice that the hospital was going to convene the Ethics Committee, to decide our sister's fate. They immediately went into action. The attorney, Jerri Ward, was up until two and three in the morning working on this. She has been killing herself on this case. These are good people. They could care less whether we're Democrats or Republicans; whether we love or hate George W. Bush; they fight for life. Period.
But, as I said, there is only so much they can do. The law is the law.
I don't know what we're going to do if they kill my sister. I guess we will go to the hospital and kiss her and hug her and tell her that we love her until she draws her last breath.
At that point, God help them all, because I'm going to take names and I will never, ever, let them forget what they did to my sister.
Excerpt Of The Day: Mac Johnson Slaps Around O'Reilly And Explains Why Gas Is So Expensive
Taxes cost you about $0.42 per gallon on average. So the next time you hear Sen. Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.) worrying about the price of gas having an impact on “working families,” such as those who I imagine work for him, just remember that the Federal government could lower the price of gas $0.184 per gallon overnight, if it simply suspended the excise tax it impacts upon those poor working families. State governments could reduce the cost by more than $0.22, if they really wished to.
Is it marketing and distribution making prices rise? Nooooooo. Although advertising on “The O’Reilly Factor” undoubtedly is expensive and delivering gas to every street corner in North America is quite a feat, these items are only a small part of gas costs: just $0.11 per gallon this last March. That’s pretty amazing when you consider the post office can’t get a lightweight and non-flammable letter to your neighborhood for less than $0.39.
Well then, maybe it is refining costs that have made gas so expensive. You’re getting warmer. Refining costs shot up noticeably after Hurricane Katrina, since several refineries were knocked out by the damage to the Gulf Coast. Most of our refineries are concentrated there because people on the East and West Coasts are too good to have to look at them. To ease the Katrina price crisis, the government suspended all sorts of very important and wise rules telling the petrochemical engineers that run the refineries how to best make gasoline. The price then dropped suddenly, proving that regulation does not affect cost much.
But now the rules are back in place. And the government added some new ones. Most fuel in the U.S. must now contain ethanol, which is expensive, cannot be transported in pipelines and is a pain in the barrel to work with. So costs have gone back up, and then up some more.
Well that just leaves crude oil costs. Have they gone up? Well, yes, apparently they have. In the three years in question they have gone from about $0.70 per gallon to $1.34 per gallon -- a 91% increase. Perhaps the rise in crude oil prices was an underreported story, and thus missed by Mr. O’Reilly? Together with the increased costs of refining by Congressional committee, the increase in crude oil prices totally explains the price of gasoline, without the need to examine if Exxon had a second shooter on the grassy knoll.
However, Mr. O’Reilly rejects the idea that the price of crude should affect the price of gasoline, because it is just a “paper price.” I’m not sure what other sort of price he thinks there is (a “street price,” perhaps?) but Mr. O’Reilly, a graduate of Harvard, thinks that the “paper price” is some sort of new-fangled hocus pocus created by speculators: “These speculators operate in the so-called commodities markets. They gamble on where the price of oil and other tangible assets will be months from now. These Vegas-type people sit in front of their computers and bid on ‘futures’ contracts.” -- Mac Johnson
*** Update #1 ***: More on gas prices from National Review:
"Harvard economist Joseph Kalt found that price controls in place from 1974 to 1980 kept domestic production 0.3 to 1.4 million barrels per day lower than it otherwise would have been, and the Congressional Research Service estimates that the windfall tax on oil profits from 1980 to 1988 decreased domestic production by 3 to 6 percent.
Those are just the kinds of numbers we don’t want to see if keeping gas prices low is our goal. The only way to put downward pressure on prices over the long term is to make sure supply can match demand — and that means encouraging domestic oil and gas production, not discouraging it. Hastert, Frist & Co. have it exactly backward.
If Congress really wanted to be helpful, it could allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and oil exploration on the continental shelves off the western and eastern coasts of the U.S. It could also streamline the onerous regulatory process that has kept the U.S. from building a single new refinery since 1976.
And it could undo the ridiculous ethanol mandate in last year’s energy bill. For years, Congress has required that gasoline contain “oxygenates” to make it cleaner. One such oxygenate, ethanol, is made from corn (among other things). It has accordingly been the traditional additive in the Midwest, while coastal regions have found it cheaper to use the petroleum-based MBTE. No longer. The energy bill requires the use of 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol each year by 2012; at the same time, Congress has denied liability protection to makers of MBTE, who have become a favorite target of tort lawyers. The consequence has been to end domestic MBTE production almost altogether. But since the ethanol industry hasn’t been able to pick up the slack yet, we’ve gotten shortages — and higher gas prices." -- National Review
THE crown prince rejects a bevy of beautiful princesses, rebuffing each suitor until falling in love with a prince. The two marry, sealing the union with a kiss, and live happily ever after.
That fairy tale about gay marriage has sparked a civil rights debate in Massachusetts, the only US state where gays and lesbians can legally wed, after a teacher read the story to a classroom of seven year olds without warning parents first.
A parents' rights group said overnight it may sue the public school in the affluent suburb of Lexington, about 19 km west of Boston, where a teacher used the book King & King in a lesson about different types of weddings.
"It's just so heinous and objectionable that they would do this," said Brian Camenker, president of the Parents Rights Coalition, a conservative Massachusetts-based advocacy group.
Mr Camenker said he believes the school, Joseph Estabrook Elementary, broke a 1996 Massachusetts law requiring schools to notify parents of sex-education lessons. "There is no question in my mind that the law is being abused here," he said.
"I wouldn't be surprised if in the next couple of weeks there was some kind of (legal) action taken," he said.
Lexington Superintendent of Schools Paul Ash said the school was under no legal obligation to inform parents the book would be read to the classroom of about 20 children.
"This district is committed to teaching children about the world they live in. Seven-year-olds see gay people. They see them in the schools. They see them with their kids," he said.
"I see this as a civil rights issue. People who are gay have a right to be treated equally," he said.
"If it were North Carolina, this would be a whole different story. But the law in Massachusetts is that gay marriage is legal. We have lots of gay families in Lexington."
Note that pro-gay-marriage advocates like Andrew Sullivan sorta forgot to mention this "side benefit" of gay marriage-- that the acceptance of gay marriage would be the pretext for drafting children into the next battlefront in the gay culture wars.
I "get" that gays have an interest in living their lives as free from hatred as possible. But I am tired of the left's insistence that every other value is subordinate to this one, including allowing children some precious few years of sexual innocence and allowing parents to decide upon his child's sexual education.
The insistence on bringing children into this is just plain creepy. Not just the gay left, but the broader heterosexual sexual/cultural left. They have an idea of what they think human sexuality ought to be and, if it's too late to change the minds of teenagers and young adults, well then, they'll just have to get to them earlier, won't they?
And it's colossally selfish. Your right to extend your fist ends at the tip of my nose, the saying goes. Surely your right to indoctrinate society per your sexual preferences ends at the tip of other people's children's noses...
But for the gay/sexual-cultural left, even children's innocence must now be sacrificed at the altar of gay marriage.
