Michael writes that he wants to see Downfall; and links to the video trailer.
Great trailer.
Oh, no; not another Hitler is evil movie.
Is Hitler the ONLY evil that Leftists can call evil?
Sudan today? Nah.
Rwanda? Wha? The VERY popular liberal Pres. Clinton said there was NO genocide, so who's to argue with Bill? (slap from Hillary, but nothing else.)
Cambodia's Killing Fields? C'mon -- the Left was protesting the US fighting evil in Vietnam because they ACCEPTED thousands being murdered. (Of course, the Useful Idiots might not have exactly agreed on what they were FOR when they wanted the US out -- maybe like Terri not wanting to be starved to death, while not wanting to be hooked to a machine?)
Michael's reply: " Oh, come on Tom. Can you find me a leftist who defends Pol Pot, the Hutu militia, and the janjaweed? "
[Mark Polling links to Noam Chomsky!]
(Thanks Mark!)
Michael, I can find LOTS of Leftists who say that those who support Bush's invasion of Iraq MUST support the results, including abuse at Abu Ghraib.
You, for instance -- while most agree that much of the abuse there was wrong.
All strategic policies that are followed have results, good and bad. To support a strategic result implies support for the results, good and bad.
OF COURSE the Left doesn't support the results of not fighting to win in SE Asia, or stopping genocide in Rwanda, or in Sudan. I'm not saying they admit that they honestly support such results.
I'm saying they dishonestly support strategic policies which had these results and then deny responsibility for the results of following their policy. (NO genocide in Rwanda by Clinton; didn't you support him in 96 before Nader in 2000?)
You met Hitch. Ask him. How many civilian SE Asians have to be murdered for the results to show that it was a "mistake" for the US to leave Vietnam? (How does one know one is wrong when supporting a policy? The policy is followed, and the results are much worse...)
Where are Leftists who claim: we should have stayed in Vietnam to fight evil commies? W should invade Sudan and institute regime change?
(Thanks for fine Dean rant on Sudan -- he's absolutely right.) How many non-fighting Sudanese civilians have to be murdered before the Left wants WAR rather than accepting genocide?
The Left's failure to accept responsibility for the results of the US leaving Vietnam w/o victory are corrupting the idea of accountability based on results, rather than intentions. Abdication because of "good intentions" is their all too easy facile refuge.
Bah. (Left includes Rather and the MSM)
Howard is the guy at Pongo who helps run this site at Mo'time. I really get frustrated at my inability to communicate the superior truth of my position to him -- he continues to disagree!
But he seems willing to work on providing a good service, FOR FREE, and I'm genuinely grateful.
Powerline reports on how Rowan Scarborough sounds a theme that you've seen here before:
In the privacy of their E-ring offices, senior Pentagon officials have begun to entertain thoughts that were unimaginable a year ago: Iraq is turning the corner. Military officials and analysts say the clearing out of enemy-infested Fallujah in November, the Jan. 30 elections and the increasing willingness of Iraqis to fight and die for a democratic country are contributing to the momentum.
I thought that Harry Potter, Ender Wiggins, (no) Help for the Iraqi People was a good title at the time.
Michael suggests Howard Dean to replace Koffi Annan at the UN. Prolly silly, an unwritten rule means the permanent Security Council members don't get to be head of the UN. But what Dean says is:
Europeans cannot criticize the United States for waging war in Iraq if they are unwilling to exhibit the moral fiber to stop genocide by acting collectively and with decisiveness. President Bush was wrong to go into Iraq unilaterally when Iraq posed no danger to the United States, but we were right to demand accountability from Saddam. We are also right to demand accountability in Sudan. Every day that goes by without meaningful sanctions and even military intervention in Sudan by African, European and if necessary U.N. forces is a day where hundreds of innocent civilians die and thousands are displaced from their land. Every day that goes by without action to stop the Sudan genocide is a day that the anti-Iraq war position so widely held in the rest of the world appears to be based less on principle and more on politics. And every day that goes by is a day in which George Bush's contempt for the international community, which I have denounced every day for two years, becomes more difficult to criticize.
The really important issue Dean made, which Michael highlights, is the failure of the UN in Sudan. Usually unspoken, The New Republic a week or two ago noted that the Liberal alternative to the US as world policeman was ... the UN.
That's the choice; US or UN, for world cop. And for the last 30 years, at least since the unopposed Killing Fields genocide in Cambodia, the UN has sucked. Big time.
It should be possible for Liberal Hawks, Leftist UN lovers, and most UN hating Reps to agree on a policy of UN reform. Like, no money until the UN starts taking action on the Sudanese genocide. (They're pulling aid workers out; the Janjiweed just murdered another aid worker in an ambush.)
I hate the Leftist non-functioning (redundant?) UN. And I'd prefer an expanded NATO to replace it as world cop; but also a Democracy Caucus inside the UN to have more power.
The Reps should be more upfront on comparing Iraq and Sudan -- the Bush "action" method, vs. the Leftist UN "talk, while threatening even more talk" method. (Of course, I wanted Bush to try to export democracy to Sudan back when Powell said it was genocide; still want it.)
After Terri dies, people's marches for democracy in Mongolia and Kirgystan (?) will be high on media list -- but Sudan will come back.
And the UN failure in Sudan. and failure in Congo. and failure on child rapists nearly everywhere. and failure on oil-for-food.
(Kofi is dead meat)
Hugo awards will be announced at Worldcon in Glasgow 4-8 August. There will be voting for the Hugo awards. I'm so out of it, I haven't even read any of these books.
But last night I saw the Czech dubbed version of Johnny Mnemonic; SF of the future. Done in 1995, before The Matrix 1999.
But it occurs to me the many post-apocalypse type sets of the future are likely to be way wrong. The future will be Without Dictators. And with mostly Middle Class -- suburbs and gentrified cities. The slums will be getting smaller; bigger first, as now, but soon more will be getting smaller.
With a more moral capitalism; one that protects the property and contract rights of the poor. With much less corruption.
Extreme Catholic has done me a great service, a list of the 425 blogs in the St. Blogs Parish list.
Thanks, again, Patrick.
There is hope, a tiny amount, that a legal or social "miracle" will occur to save her life. But I no longer expect it. On two of the Liberal sites I visit a lot, Michael J Totten and Marc Cooper, I left comments on their posts. Nobody should be starved without having explicitly requested it -- food is not medicine, it is an ordinary and inevitable requirment. That's all. Ordinary food and water. Why does Michael Schiavo need her to starve?
There are many dying patients who seem ready to die, and refuse to eat. But they suffer from thirst. My wife tells me that an ice-cube for wetting the mouth seems good at reducing the discomfort of those who are dying. Or frozen juice.
Food and water are "ordinary" necessities of life -- everybody needs them. To be forbidden food, by judicial decision, is more unjust than forcing blacks to sit at the back of the bus. The failure of Florida law to differentiate between ordinary and extraordinary means of life-prolongation is, hopefully, a failure that will be changed.
Law should require an explicit acceptance of death through lack of food for nutrition to be withheld -- "hooked to a machine", as Terri said she didn't want to be, should be limited to extraordinary means, like most people mostly think. Judge Greer's summary of his 18 witnesses provides no indication that Terri wanted to be starved to death -- his "clear and convincing" evidence of what she wanted seems limited to her not wanting extraordinary means, to my reading of the decision.
Michael Schiavo could have chosen to divorce Terri instead of asking for the court to starve her. Why is her death by starvation so necessary?
Michael Totten (still reading?), would you want to be starved to death in a PVS state?
Michael and Grant, this is a case where the "morals" of secular fundamentalism are being forced, by judicial order, on those who may not agree, and many who explicitly disagree. Remember how Saddam's crimes included raping girls in front of their husbands and fathers? Your support for secular fundies means support for starving a girl to death in front of her mother and father. And in front of me. On the next "culture war" issue, I'll likely remind you about which side is forcing their morals on others, with your support.
On schools -- vouchers give choice. Secularists want no God in school, AND no choice about it.
On prayer in public -- Secularists against it, and don't want choice on it.
On the EU commission -- Secularists refuse a believing Catholic (because of belief that homosexual behavior is sinful, NOT because of past), but accept a former Communist.
On AIDs treatment, the best example is Uganda -- Abstinence, Being faithful, Condoms. But most Secularists avoid the A & B, and only want more Condoms. Less, or much less, than optimal.
From a non-religious Utilitarian perspective, Christian morality is socially more optimal than Secularism.
Marc: "And that is the really unfortunate part of this Schiavo spectacle...the obfuscation of a very simple truth: that people do have the right to die in dignity rather be artificially animated beyond brain death with machines."
Here's the simple truth -- nobody should be starved to death, unless they've explicitly requested it. (How about you Marc, if you were in PVS would you want to be starved to death?).
Read the 10 p. Feb. 2000 decision by Judge Greer. It says there is "clear and convincing" evidence, testimony, that Terri Schiavo didn't want to be "hooked to a machine" -- to prolong her life (in the case of a terminal illness? not clear).
It seems that if any testimony was requested about whether Terri wanted to be "starved to death", it wasn't included--I guess nobody (the parents' lawyer missed?) asked.
The issue is having her starve to death.
The circus is having a court force her parents watch as their daughter is cruelly and unusually forbidden food & water, the ordinary requirements for any life. A feeding tube is not extraordinary means; but Jeb Bush's 1999 Florida law specifically includes nutrition in Artificial Life Prolongation. Bad law, like Jim Crow laws, should prolly be met with non-violent civil disobedience.
The law is wrong -- sometimes the law is an ass. This is one of those times. Judge Greer made a mistake; he should have ruled that there is NOT clear and convincing evidence that Terri would want to starve herself to death. Thus allowing her Trust Fund to pay for some 50+ years of minimal care and feeding, until her body dies of some other reason (never to be "hooked to a machine" to save her).
Had Greer ruled thusly, Michael Schiavo's main choice would be to accept that ruling, divorce Terri, and move on with his life -- never see his ex-wife again, who would become "dead" to him. The circus could have stopped at any time had Michael S. not NEEDED to starve his wife. Why does he need her dead?
Yes, had Terri's parents accepted her execution, the circus could have stopped. The circus could also have ended before, had any of the many judges that reviewed the case come to the common sense decision that starvation is such an unusual, if not cruel, punishment / treatment, that it requires explicit acceptance (oral or written) before the state imposes it.
As she dies, and in church we remember how Christ died, and in Rome we watch how the Pope is "dying", I hope and pray for more understanding. I pray for fewer executions by the Secular Fundamentalists, who are imposing their pro-death (with dignity!) morals upon this highly disabled woman.
An innocent woman seems about to be executed for the crime of being inconvenient to her adulterous husband. Naturally, those who support the death of any inconvenient human fetus, want to maintain the imposition of those morals as well.
Another battle in the War over the Culture of Life.
Randall Terry is extreme -- but so is death by starvation. Marc, what better suggestion do you have for the Schindler's to save their daughter? Recalling that Saddam's crimes including raping and killing girls and mothers, in front of their families, I'm glad you understand how cruel the pro-death proponents are in imposing execution by starvation, as her parents watch and are forbidden to help.
Open Letter to Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit,
please ask your wife these 3 personal questions.
If you were in a PVS state, would you want to be hooked to a machine indefinitely?
If you were in a PVS state in Florida, would you want to be hooked to a machine?
If you were in a PVS state, would you want to starve to death?
I’m pretty sure your wife answered no to all of these questions, just like the folks around me.
Unfortunately, according to Florida
law, answering “no” to question 2 implies an automatic “yes” to question 3. Similarly, answering “no” to 3 implies “yes” to 2.
If your wife didn’t know this, isn’t it possible that Terri didn’t know it? So that, had the witnesses ever been asked about Terri’s view on whether she would want to be starved to death, they might have answered in a legally contradictory way. If they had done so, wouldn’t that be a strong indication there is no “clear and convincing” evidence over what she knowingly wanted, among the consistently legal choices? (Knowing in the
Browning sense.)
BNN - Blogger's News Network, should have my recent post on Terri up.
Terri Schiavo is being executed by starvation due to a legal order by Judge Greer.
Dan England
describes how Terri
“is being starved to serve "justice". However, she has committed no crime. Several recent polls say that a majority of Americans believe that starving Terri is OK. God help us.”
Dan Riehl
notes that his
“desire to see Terry Schiavo live was not based upon the law but on common sense, compassion and a respect for life. But any adult should know by now that when you tangle with the justice system you cannot expect a morality judgment or common sense, you can only expect the law.”
Understanding Terri’s execution can come only with reference to the 10 page legal decision by Judge Greer, delivered in February, 2000, after a petition was filed by Michael Schiavo to determine whether Terri would want her feeding tubes removed, which her parents disputed.
The main legal and moral issues involve what Terri really wanted. According to Judge Greer, there is “clear and convincing” evidence that Terri did not want her life prolonged by artificial means, she did not want to be “Hooked to a Machine.”
What is missing is an explicit determination that feeding tubes, which most medical ethics books consider as normal, ordinary means of providing nutrition, are included in what Terri did not want for herself.
Rev. Sirico of the
Acton Institute wrote tellingly of this moral dilemma in 1997,
“Ordinary means include food and water, what is needed to preserve life under ordinary conditions. Extraordinary means anything above that, which should be taken if conditions permit it but which morality doesn't necessarily require if economics or other considerations intervene.”
Normal people usually keep ordinary nutrition outside the scope of what they mean when they say they do not want to be hooked to a machine.
When Terri looked at her grandmother’s intensive care hookups and said she would want her own caregivers to “let her go,” did she really mean she would want her grandmother to be starved to death?
Terri said that she didn’t want her life to be prolonged by machine hook up. If she meant to include feeding tubes in this rejection, then by her wishes she should be allowed to starve. Florida
law, passed in 1999, clearly includes feeding tubes as part of a single category (consistent with Supreme Court rulings on refusal of medical treatment):
(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.
The site of Matt Conigliaro,
Abstract Appeal, provides the most comprehensive links about this case. This includes a recent blog
post debunking the “hearsay evidence” issue, as to the Terri’s wishes, which quotes the guiding prior decision
In re Browning:
there may be challenges to claims that the declaration was not executed knowingly, willingly, and without undue influence; that the patient had changed his or her mind after executing the declaration; that the declaration was ambiguous; that the conditions or limitations contained in the declaration were not satisfied; that the surrogate or proxy was the one actually designated; and, of course, that there was a reasonable probability that the patient would regain competency.
Here’s Matt on the excellent
Timeline part of his InfoPage:
Following trial, Judge Greer rules that clear and convincing evidence shows Terri would choose not to receive life-prolonging medical care under her current circumstances (i.e., that she would choose to have the tube removed).
This is where justice is most likely making a wrong turn. To not receive life-prolonging medical care IS EQUAL TO removing the feeding tube IS EQUAL TO being starved to death. The Judge has ruled that there is clear and convincing evidence that Terri would knowingly wish to be starved to death. Starving is clear from tube removal, from no life-prolonging care – yet most people would not know this is the “legal” meaning of not being hooked to a machine.
If Terri would not want to be starved to death in her current state, then Judge Greer is making a mistake. Her parents, for instance, do not believe that the evidence she would want to be starved to death is clear and convincing.
The 1999 Florida Law, signed by Gov. Bush while Terri’s case was in process, is probably a bad law. But each and every person who feels that the Judge made the correct ruling is claiming that she would want to be starved to death.
I do not want to be starved to death, ever. I don’t believe Terri would want that, either. The evidence that she would not want to live hooked to a machine is not, for me, clear and convincing evidence she would want to be starved to death. And if the legal equality in the words of the law is not matched by the “knowledge” of normal people, the lack of knowledge by normal people should take precedence over the unexpected consequences of the legal wording.
My non-legal opinion is that, while there is clear and convincing evidence Terri didn’t want to be on extraordinary life support indefinitely, the evidence that she would want to be starved to death is not clear and convincing. I believe that Judge Greer could have made such a ruling in 2000. And should have. Now it seems too late.
Terri Schiavo and the Culture of Life
The execution by starvation of Terri Schiavo fully justifies all the media attention, and possibly more. It overflows with culture war issues: euthanasia and life and death decisions based on quality of life considerations and convenience, the death penalty, treatment of handicapped persons, medical testimony, medical malpractice and award distributions, judicial protections for the innocent (and abortion), judicial activism, federal power, the sanctity of marriage and the legal matters around it (and gay-marriage), and cruel and inhumane punishment – all now more urgent as the body of Terri is starved, and any who wish to help her are forbidden by law to do so. The Pope’s ‘culture of life’ ideas infuse this debate, with most anti-Christian political opponents supporting Terri’s execution.
In response to Michael Schiavo’s 1998 request, in February, 2000, Judge Greer decided that Terri should be removed from Artificial Life Support. In other words, to remove her feeding tubes so that she would be starved to death. Much of the last 5 years has involved legal attempts to postpone or rescind this decision. The final federal law passed and signed by President Bush is an attempt to look at Judge Greer’s decision again, but the federal judges have so far decided the law is not enough to keep Terri alive long enough to review the case.
Much recent media attention on whether to feed or starve her usually assumes knowledge of the past, or mentions too few points. Teresa Schindler, raised as a Roman Catholic, married Michael Schiavo in 1984. In 1990, while being treated for bulimia, Terri had a cardiac arrest, fell unconscious, and has never regained consciousness. Her husband and parents initially cared for her together, while in 1992 Michael won a suite against the doctors who had been treating her bulimia.
In February, 1993, Michael received a $300 000 settlement for himself, and another $700 000 for the Guardianship of Teresa Marie Schiavo. He and the Schindlers then disagreed about how the money should be split and have since then become antagonistic.
Were Terri to die, all remaining money would go to Michael. Were Michael to divorce Terri, it seems her parents would be granted guardianship over her. The Schindlers would then get the money if she died after that; they have expressed their desire for Michael to divorce their daughter. Both sides have conflicts of interests over the care of Terri, and the division of the money.
Terri is not terminally ill, occasionally seems to have responses to sounds, but is kept alive by feeding and hydration tubes. Her supporters claim there are questions about her status. The Judge Greer court has declared she is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), or the same, according to Florida law, and “to this day remains in a comatose state” (from his 10 page Feb. 2000 decision to terminate her life support.) There have been CAT scans, but no MRI or PET scans.
Michael Schiavo is now living with another woman, essentially in common-law marriage, with whom he has two children. He continues to visit his wife Terri, but in 1998 submitted a petition to Discontinue Artificial Life Support. Florida law makes no distinction between extraordinary means of extending life, like artificial breathing or kidney apparatus, and intravenous feeding – all are Artificial Life Support. Terri left no written statement about her wishes, so the Court had to decide upon oral testimony what she would have wanted.
In the Karen Ann Quinlin case, the patient in the coma was being kept alive with extraordinary means. When these were removed, she continued to live for many months merely with IVF. This was the subject of news reports through the 1970s, and even a movie. According to testimony, Terri’s wishes were expressed as not wanting to be “hooked to a machine”, nor to be a burden. The Catholic Church has a tradition that differentiates between mere machine assisted feeding, and extraordinary means of life support – and specifically allows refusal of such extraordinary means.
The goal of Florida Law is to grant the “right to refuse unwanted medical treatment” to all persons, even those incapacitated—the crux of the legal decision is the testimony about what Terri had expressed as what she wanted. It requires the highest burden of proof in a non-criminal case, clear and convincing evidence. Further, when the only evidence is from oral declarations, the accuracy and reliability of the declarant’s testimony may be challenged. The three point test requires that: 1) evidence of the patient’s oral declaration is reliable; 2) no reasonable probability of recovering competency; and 3) any limitations have been carefully considered and satisfied.
The judge discounted the statements made by an 11-12 year Terri about wanting the father of Quinlin to leave her alone (i.e. not disconnect her), and other statements as “more reflective of what Terri Schiavo would do in a similar situation for someone else.”
The judge accepted Terri’s statements to Michael, prompted by her grandmother being in intensive care, that if she was ever a burden she would not want to live like that; and at the funeral for the grandmother her statements to Michael’s brother Scott that “if I ever go like that just let me go. Don’t leave me there. I don’t want to be kept alive on a machine.” Michael’s sister-in-law Joan Schiavo testified that Terri, following a movie about a man in a coma, made a statement to the effect that she wanted it stated in her will that she would want the tubes and everything taken out if that ever happened to her. “The court specifically finds that these statements are Terri Schiavo’s oral declarations concerning her intention as to what she want done under the present circumstances and the testimony regarding such oral declarations is reliable, is creditable and rises to the level of clear and convincing evidence to this court.”
The judge could also have decided that, while these statements were likely made, they do not rise to level of clear and convincing evidence either because they may not have been intentions she was truly committed to, or that they applied to the present circumstances. Had Terri left a written statement about her beliefs and desires for herself, there would be no big question.
The decision to execute Terri Schiavo, has put spotlights on many questions:
Are a few statements by Terri, made at a funeral or after a movie, clear evidence of her reasoned desires? It seems possible that her statements are more like “I sure hope I’m never in that situation”.
The heart of the conflict is that of euthanasia – should a so-called low-quality life be terminated when it becomes inconvenient?
Why is this death sentence made by just one judge? Criminal murderers get a jury trial, and a level of certainty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Why isn’t there more protection for the innocent Terri, who was never represented by her own counsel?
Should the Florida Law distinguish between feeding tubes and other connections of Artificial Life Support? Many think that the Florida Legislature should have already explicitly differentiated between IVF administration of normal food requirements, and other artificial heart, lungs, kidney, or other organ supplement. Of course, if it does so, would IVF be considered being hooked up to a machine so that not wanting extraordinary support is different to not wanting IVF?
The existence of the large monetary award, whose use becomes unrestricted only after Terri’s death, creates doubt about all testimony; these doubts perhaps make it impossible for any oral arguments to be clear and convincing. The money totally undercuts Michael’s claim that death is what Terri wanted (even if it is true). Yet while the judge discounts his testimony, he accepts that of Michael’s brother and sister-in-law, which seems dubious.
The reliability of Michael’s testimony becomes increasingly suspect with the existence of the affidavit by Nurse Carla Iyer (1995-1996), accusing Michael of being abusive, intimidating, and not concerned with physical therapy for Terri.
It seems possible that Judge Greer specifically wanted to avoid mentioning Ms. Iyer, since his decision includes this:
By all accounts, Mr. Schiavo has been was very motivated in pursuing the best medical care for his wife, even taking her to California for a month or so for experimental treatment. It is undisputed that he was very aggressive with nursing home personnel to make certain that she received the finest of care. In 1994, Mr. Schiavo attempted to refuse medical treatment for an infection being experienced by his wife. His unrefuted testimony was that his decision was based upon medical advice. Mr. and Mrs. Schindler filed an action have him removed as Guardian based upon numerous allegations, including abuse. Mr. Schiavo relented and authorized the treatment after which a Guardian Ad Litem appointed by this court found that there was no basis to have him removed. Mr. and Mrs. Schindler ultimately dismissed their petition citing financial considerations as their motivation. (p. 3 of Greer)
“…Dr. Gambone even noted that close attention to detail has resulted in her excellent physical condition and that Petitioner is very involved.” (p.4)
Yet there is no regime of therapy referenced, Michael’s refusal to treat the urinary tract infection seems fairly damning, and the lack of a reference to which doctor gave him the medical advice to not treat it seems suspicious.
No wonder everybody hates the lawyers – somebody has to read all the opinions and look at what is really said, and not said, and whenever a close decision is made, there will be reasonable folk who strongly feel it’s the wrong decision. With reason.
Should anybody be executed, or euthanized?
The Catholic Church is against the death penalty, even for murderers guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Many other Christians, however, support the death penalty for the guilty. Terri’s case is partial euthanasia, if one believes that she really wanted to die, and partially state sponsored execution, if one is not certain Terri would have wanted to be killed.
It was Judge Greer’s job to decide if Terri would have wanted what is essentially euthanasia in her present state, and he decided that there was clear and convincing evidence that she would want to be killed. Those opposed attack the decision based both on bad interpretation of current law, and bad current law.
Politically, the more anti-Death Penalty Democrats seem to favor execution, while the Reps, who are more supportive of innocent victim’s rights, favor continued feeding. More naturally, the pro-abortion people support death, the pro-life people support life. Most pro-gay marriage folk support death, as decided by the husband Michael, while anti-gay marriage folk support life, and wonder why Michael hasn’t divorced Terri, since he’s already got a another woman with whom he’s having children.
The Legislature should stipulate that IVF will not be withdrawn without a written statement.
Resources as Terri is executed:
There is a good list of legal issues and Florida law.
The 10 page trial court order of 11 Feb 2000 includes a history:
Father Sirico of Acton had a fine program on the Laura Ingraham show.
A very important affidavit by a nurse who cared for Terri from 95-96, Carla Iyer.
An examination of Terri by Dr. William Hammesfahr – Explosive. If this report is true, there is no excuse for executing her now.
Thomas Sowell makes the point that starvation is Cruel and Unusual punishment.
“No murderer would be allowed to be killed this way, which would almost certainly be declared "cruel and unusual punishment," in violation of the Constitution, by virtually any court.
Terri Schiavo's only crime is that she has become an inconvenience -- and is caught in the merciless machinery of the law. Those who think law is the answer to our problems need to face the reality that law is a crude and blunt instrument.
Make no mistake about it, Terri Schiavo is being killed. She is not being "allowed to die."
Michele Malkin’s list of links preferred Andrew C. McCarthy’s Torturing Terri Schiavo
Well, lo and behold, a court-ordered torture is set to begin in Florida on Friday at 1 P.M.
It will not produce a scintilla of socially useful information. It will not save a single innocent life. It is not narrowly targeted on a morally culpable person — the torture-victim is herself as innocent as she is defenseless. It is not, moreover, meant to be brief and non-lethal: The torture will take about two excruciating weeks, and its sole and only purpose is to kill the victim.
As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher's Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around... per the Watcher's instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.
Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.
I'm submitting my own post Leftist Press de-certification. Hope it's not too late.
The Watcher's Council is also looking for another blog to join the council.
Jay Rosen is worried a lot about decertification of the press:
"In short," says the magazine, "the traditional notion that the media play a special role in informing people is breaking down." It's true. And that is the development I am calling de-certification, because the traditional idea is not breaking down by itself. It has assistance and intervention from above. The Economist brings it home:
Behind all this lies a shift in the balance of power in the news business. Power is moving away from old-fashioned networks and newspapers; it is swinging towards, on the one hand, smaller news providers (in the case of blogs, towards individuals) and, on the other, to the institutions of government, which have got into the business of providing news more or less directly. Eventually, perhaps, the new world of blogs will provide as much public scrutiny as newspapers and broadcasters once did. But for the moment the shifting balance of power is helping the government behemoth.
And for the moment the government behemoth is helping itself to a status that is increasingly being denied to the press: that of a neutral, disinterested, just-the-facts style information provider. It is quite a switch.
The de-certification is real, continuing -- and necessary. That is, the MSM Liberally Biased press is being de-certified, from below, and deserves it.
What to do? <i>"nothing you can do mitigates the scorn of the LMB critics"</i> -- how about being more critical of the Dems -- what IS their plan?
On MORAL issues, some 26 million voted for Bush, only 4 million for Kerry (see Pew, or my 3-d analysis) -- but newsrooms have essentially blacklisted anybody who supports Bush morals.
Bias-deniers, like Ron Brynaert, fail to address the news story of the form-that-must-not-be-named. The one Kerry may, finally sign (says Kaus) -- and we'll find out either 1) nothing there, he was stupid to not sign it before, or 2) whoops, that first PH really was kinda questionable; zero days in hospital; most of the Swiftie Claims are established or the official reports don't fully contradict them.
Harry Potter #4 has a character, Rita Skeeter, whose goal is to write biased articles against the Ministry of Magic, then For Harry, then against Harry's friends, and against him. It's a great set of clearly biased reports. A lot like MSM.
The NYT or Liberal Press takes a white house speech, interprets it and twists its meaning. But the speech itself is there on the web; one can read what Bush actually DID say -- and it's not what the Biased Press wants to claim he said. In this way, the press is decertifying itself.
Jay, thanks (again) for a great, important idea. But, again, you're wrong: the problem is NOT Bush -- it's too many secularist, anti-Christian Leftists in the newsrooms. And in the Universities. How is it possible that genetics CAN force some to be homosexual, but can NOT influence more men to be gifted physicists than women? Only in a PC theology, where facts don't matter as much as intentions.
PC la la land, where any good results of Bush policies you oppose are explained away, and any bad results of policies you support are ignored. But the bad results of Bush policies, no matter how small, are relentlessly "reported" and "analyzed", much like a Jehovah's Witness person is willing to talk and talk and talk.
The reason the gov't is moving in on providing info, and the MAIN reason (not only), is that the Dem Party faithful whose jobs are in reporting "news" are unable to get their facts straight, when the facts disagree with their passionately held beliefs.
Chimp-Bush the idiot -- Genius Bush the innovator of evil. Bah.
Jay, wake up: "the new world of blogs will provide as much public scrutiny as newspapers and broadcasters once did." -- heck, Rathergate and Easongate show that bloggers are ALREADY doing better. The question is whether the Left can come up with facts, rather than foaming at the mouth Bush hate rants (this does NOT mean here at PressThink). Real facts, not strawman twisted quotes.
The problem with you, and Kos, Krugman, Kevin Drum, is your own lying bias. Social Security is unsustainable "as is" -- either taxes go up, or benefits are cut (incl. retirement age deferred) ... or, for the same amount of money taken, the return on the forced retirement savings goes up. The lying Dems say "no crisis" (now), but refuse to disclose this means a BIGGER tax increase or benefit cut later.
Of course, that IS the future ... and there are no real facts, today, about the future. (I think I've written this here before.) Only what some folk say.
Ain't those pro-democracy protests and demonstrations popping out all over the Mid East wonderful? Might not work; might see some civil wars -- but at least the folk are learning to HOPE for freedom. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Please consider the reasons for the state execution, of the innocent and the guilty.
In Terri's case, for convenience, the convenience of her husband (who HAS the choice to divorce, but refuses to). Terri is only guilty of being inconvenient. In the case of abortion, rather than birth and adoption, the human fetus is executed for the convenience of the mother.
In the case of death penalty criminals, proven beyond reasonable doubt (as OJ was not) as guilty, they are executed as punishment/ justice/ retribution -- for the benefit/ convenience of the surviving relatives of the victims. For "justice". I have no problem with executing the truly guilty; but I'm sure that some innocent folk have been wrongly executed. This error is so terrible that I'm willing to accept life imprisonment rather than death for anybody convicted yet who maintains their own innocence. Every justice system makes both kinds of errors.
Michael, GREAT link to the Lefty sites on lack of money as a reason to pull the plug -- the pro-life folk should be organized such that this virtually never happens. And improving the actions of your political rivals should be a goal constructive criticism. It's almost always my goal.
Powerline notes that if Terri is executed by starvation, she'll prolly die right around Easter. For believing Christians, Easter is the Most Holy of Holidays.
I think the main emotional reason to be slightly on the "pull the plug" side is because most anti-abortion pro-life folk are against this death; and you don't really want to be on the side that so many pro-life Christians are on.
See also
NRO for some more facts on the flawed process.
You're right that the Fed. gov't is all about politics; but how can you honestly say that W has more important things to do -- then implicitly ask where he is, where is the "right to life" crowd, on getting money for those too poor to pay for the care?
I truly hope the pro-lifers DO solve the "too poor for feeding care" problem; though I doubt that they'll score many genuine points with you if they do. (They DO lose points from me, for now, because they haven't.)
---
This is the culture war: the culture of life vs. the culture of death.
Those against Christianity will feel, irrespective of their logical thinking, more comfy with pulling the plug. With lots of related culture war issues.
Yes, abortion -- the execution of the innocent, unwanted fetus.
Yes, euthanasia -- the execution of the old, disabled, unwanted. With or without a Living Will.
A little bit on death penalty -- the execution of the guilty ... why do guilty criminals get more legal protection than Terri?
Yes, on sexual promiscuity. Dennis Prager notes that the Jews started the first huge sexual revolution -- by placing moral limits on the male sexual urge and only accepting as moral married heterosexual relations. Sexuality is ALWAYS part of the US culture wars. Too often unspoken.
Yes, on gay marriage, and marriage responsibility, and respect for marriage. When is marriage less sacred, and why?
Yes, on political posturing. Both by Reps AND by Dems. The usually anti-death penalty Dems should be, at least, supporting a full range of brain scan tests and multiple doctor examinations. I don't see how anybody can support pulling the plug before doing a few more tests. [Michael, even after "No. Brain." is confirmed, I'd support feeding -- but think the plug-pullers would be more justified.]
Just as political operative Reps see this as an issue (red meat?) for their pro-Christian base, the Dems are reactionary against it.
Dems that think supporting the execution of Terri will increase their Catholic vote count shouldn't be surprised when the 48% for Kerry drops to 38% in the upcoming rout -- which is the goal of the Reps, and the fear and loathing of the Dems (who want Catholic votes without supporting Catholic values).
The Left is engaged in a Moral Superiority "war" -- they NEED to feel, not necessarily think, that their position is Morally Superior.
Recall Kimmit's (prior thread on Michael Totten) "indefensible foulness" of actions "we" have done -- we the Christian West. Which he includes himself in, to gain the Christian Civ Western credit for supporting human rights, but considers himself superior to those unwilling to criticize it (in the way he does).
Why is it a lie? Because our Ally, Joe Stalin, ordered the inhumane execution of thousands of Polish officers at Katyn, and a couple other mass graves. In WW II "we" did, in fact, commit foul crimes. But they are defensible, as lesser evils always are, by comparison to the greater evil.
If these evils were "indefensible", it would require one to be willing to stop the alliance (or vote against the President who continues the alliance); and, if the result is losing the war, to accept losing the war and give up responsibility for the result. (Killing Fields, yada yada)
The Left has in their mind an Unreal Perfection as the implicit alternative (though they deny it). Any actions any US gov't takes which include immoral results is thereby condemned, with the deeply, passionately held feeling that there MUST be another way... to get the good result without the costs.
Neither I, nor Kimmit or Leftists, raped any Salvadorean nuns, nor napalmed Vietnamese, nor murdered Polish POWs. Nor do either of us want Hitler to win, or commie Killing Fields in SE Asia. I'm not sure about other Castro/ Sandinista issues in Latin America; I certainly don't want more commie dictators there.
But fighting evil requires, at times, war -- and supporting war is hell because it means accepting the evil of killing civilians, torturing the innocent, etc. Not condone, have systems to try to reduce it, punish those on your side who commit crimes -- but continue to support the leader who is fighting evil despite the lesser evils our side has committed.
There are some Bush-critics who say the lack of an Iraqi governemnt shows democracy failing in Iraq. They should look for more info about Coalition agreements. In Slovakia, with Proportional Representation, each gov't is a coalition of different parties (which are often themselves coalitions; like the Shia coalition). Before the gov't is formed, the different parties have to agree on the outline of the gov't program, and which coalition partner gets which Ministry (source of corruption funds/ power).
Such Prop. Rep. gov'ts can then fail because, when a Ministry finally gets the legislative details worked out, another coalition partner might object enough to vote against it, and the law may fail. Then the unsuccessful party may leave the coalition, and the gov't fails, or a new coalition gov't (& agreement) is formed, or there are new elections, or the gov't continues as a "minority" gov't.
The point is to watch the coalition agreement between the Kurds and the Shia over the status of Kirkuk. The Bremer supported Constitution, along with enough Kurdish votes, was successful in making the majority Shia include at least one other partner in their coalition gov't--so there has to be compromise.
This is good; great. But messy, and those wanting fast progress will say it's too slow ... some will say our dear leader could do it better, faster, if HE just had all the power. That's the path towards dictators.
[To reduce the number of parties, Slovakia has a 5% threshold -- parties getting less that number of votes, don't get any representation in the National Parliament. Those that DO get over the threshold, then pick up mabye a seat or two because only 90-95% of the votes go to successful parties. I don't think Israel has this; I think it should.]
The now-edited Friends of Democracy Iraq site is much better, more readable. Because "someone" is doing the work.
I sincerely thank you, Michael, for being that someone, for now. The contrast with the Feb 29 article is very clear.
Yet I honestly think you should hire somebody else, in a month or so -- because I think your UNIQUE writing talents would be better used in writing your own insights, columns, etc. Perhaps even a "Shadow Friends" where you comment on many of the posts.
Oh yeah, Wolfie is GREAT for the WB, like
Bolton
for the UN, and Condi for
Sec
State
. Let's have these institutions supporting the Bush vision, instead of paying pro-stability "realists" (=pro-dictator) high salaries to tell the news folk how Bush's policies could never work. (Let them write books!)
Stiglitz may be right about choosing the right general, but in fact the World Bank's support of governments, rather than poor people, is at the heart of its problem. No general can win the war with the unwinnable strategy. I doubt if Wolfie will pursue a much better strategy; but at least he'll be on board for using the WB to make Bush look good by having WB projects actually reduce poverty.
Maybe those who hate Bush looking good thru successful democratic results are also afraid of Bush's World Bank making him look good as it actually supports democracy, and reduces poverty too.
I look to Marc Cooper, among others, to point out when Wolfie slips up in results; not exactly looking forward to it, but expecting both.
Marc’s commenter Michael Turner lists, with great passion, things that might still go wrong in
Iraq and
Afghanistan . It seems he enters the pit of wanting the bad things just to show "bad thing happen, me told so, me SMART !".
Too bad the coffee didn't spurt out of his nose. Does he agree with what George said, that Syrians must leave? Or, is he just trying to find another stick to beat on Bush, the Great Liberator?
If you want to say the
US should leave
Iraq -- you MUST agree that the Syrians should leave
Lebanon . And first -- they've been there longer.
On the other hand, there could be a civil war in
Lebanon , fed by the Syrians or purely home-Hezbollah grown. I doubt it (because
Israel would come in and cleanse the Hezbollah leadership before leaving), but civil war might happen.
Similarly in
Iraq ... except for those US troops which really ARE stopping the civil war. As long as the
US is there, no civil war. So the Arab Shi'a majority will just have to learn how to deal with a coalition gov't including the minority Sunni Kurds, and
Kirkuk is their biggest priority.
The Kurds might not sign any agreement, form any gov't, until there is agreement on
Kirkuk . In detail. What a mess.
Welcome to Democracy. Brought to you, and kept free from civil war, by your friendly professional (=mercenary) US Army.
I've skimmed Dan Schneider’s long article a bit, maybe I'll read it all later. (Thanks for comments.)
But I know I don't believe a lot of what is said, like:
"But, our hubris allowed our soldiers to invade
Iraq in far too few numbers, with far too little protection and support."
There should be a way of knowing if "too few" is true or not -- a measurable number. Like American Deaths.
For me, the main cost of the inevitable war against oil-funded Islamofascism is in American deaths.
This discussion is continuing on Cobb, whom I thank for mentioning the WTC death toll; I often cite 2500 as a number of deaths for "grading" Pres. Bush. If he gets to a democracy in Iraq with less, he gets an "A" -- if it's more but less than 5000 he gets a "B"; more but less than 10 000, he gets a "C".
Right now, at some 1500, it looks like Bush scores a 93 -- "A". I know this makes folks uncomfortable, but I prefer honest grading to dishonest posing around it.
Every body bag is a tragedy. War is hell. But to claim "too few" troops implicitly means: "if we had more troops there, fewer would have died". Which may be true, but there would certainly have been more targets, even more poorly trained, armed, and protected, so it might well NOT be true.
Here's the point: how few have to die before Bush's plan to topple Saddam, as implemented, is seen as a great success?
I've seen no Bush-critic answer this question. I suspect because when they say Zero, they know it's an Unreal Perfection alternative. But when they attempt to be realistic, and admit that "some" must die, then they put any number less than 1000, it's pretty ridiculous. The
US military loses hundreds of soldiers each year just to accidents.
The key issues are whether or not Saddam was evil (though most Bush critics pay lip service to this one), whether or not continued containment wasn't a better strategy, and whether invasion won't increase the anti-American terror.
Containment was already breaking down, how many stories were there about Iraqi babies dying because of sanctions? (Few such orgs now admit the babies were dying because of evil Saddam stealing the food-for-oil wealth, and bribing the UN.)
Invasion DID create an Iraqi democracy. How much in human rights? Nobody knows yet (such uncertainty seems to be one reason so many support the more certain dictators).
Bush is going after dictatorship terror states -- the real root causes. Faster, please.
American Digest has the headline, and the Fisking of the silly WaPo article:
Dictatorship? What Dictatorship?: Washington Post Managing Editor Chats With The Peoples' Daily
At least there's some honesty there: "I don't think the US should be the leader of the world."
Leftist junk.
