May

31

2005

Schiavo Autopsy , Liberal Carelessness, Living Will Worthless

Filed Under Law and Ethics | 31 Comments

I have no particular interest in the autopsy results, as I told a friend who suggested that it is time for the results to made known: we could have learned much more about Terri’s condition if they had performed all of the new tests while she was alive. An autopsy will no more tell us about Terri’s ability to comprehend the world than we can tell the color of a dinosaur by examining its fossilized remains. In both cases we are left to make a best guess. I can do without knowing the hue of an ancient lizard. But, I will always regret that they did not fully determine the level of Terri’s ability to recognize and connect to this world. One need not have the intellect of Stephen Hawking to be incapacitated, but alive. We all function at differing levels. If, as her family believes, she was aware that she was being starved to death, then all the other arguments make no matter; the wrong thing was done.

My friend, who resisted my notion that support for Terri was not motivated by religion, (he is a former Catholic, who now is suspicious of everything Catholic and sees Catholic conspiracies in all things;but, then, having an Uncle who is a convicted pedophile Preist is a burden to which I can not relate and obviously a great motivator of his thinking), wants me to believe that even against the wishes of the Church, GWB, the Congrees, and the Supreme Court, it had to happen the way it did for Terri. Because, (1) her brain was a bag of liquid, (2) her family was unfairly critical of Michael Schiavo, (3) Terri had made it known that she did not want to live that way, (4) if we did not starve her we could not justify starving the other 2000 brain dead people who we let die that way each year, (5) if we have to keep all the brain dead people alive it will cost too much State money, (6) the Supreme Court decided she should die, (7) the Congress’ action allowing a Federal court to review the case was unconstitutional, (8a) the Federal court and Supreme court decided to not hear her review because they knew the law was unconstitutional, (8b)the Supreme Court justices were watching the case and would have stepped in if there were any grounds not to kill Terri, (9) refusing her food and water by mouth after the feeding tube was removed was perfectly alright because she should only get food and water if she can feed herself or at least ask another to feed her, (10) he says he heard terrible lies from both sides and he thinks Michael could have handled it better, (11) my friend thinks he is going to get a living will in place soon so he can know he will never have to live as a vegetable…………..

Ignorance.

I calmly and directly countered his every point, (or if he was close to being right I reinforced his statement to increase its meaning); he was the one who left mad, saying as he went that he had other things to spend his time on. He isn’t a bad guy, just terribly ignorant on this issue. And, he is an example of a person too busy to get the facts straight. And, too shallow (a term of endearment descibing a reforming liberal still too caught up in his Massachusetts education indoctrination) to know the harm his carelessness does.

All of this has been a prelude to the introduction of an article about an Englishman who executed a living will directing that he not be starved to death. I told my friend to be precise in his living will, seems even then you can not be assured of getting your way.

Leslie Burke …. has asked that his right not to be starved or dehydrated to death be upheld by the doctors who treat him.

The Department of Health, along with the British Medical Association, opposes that right and is adamant that it will not guarantee to respect it unless it is forced to do so by the courts.

I found the above article at Les Jones who remarks correctly;

But as with Terri Schiavo – who was brain damaged but not brain dead – the British health care system wants to cease care before brain death occurs. They want to withdraw Burke’s feeding tube when he becomes unable to feed himself and becomes uncommunicative, even if he’s fully aware he’s being slowly starved to death. Schiavo took more than two weeks to die after her feeding tube was removed. We don’t kill criminals or dogs that way – only innocent people.

A point, which I am proud to say, I managed to make to my friend. I hope he has time to remember that lesson. And the depth to appreciate the ramifications to humanity if we continue down the euthanasis express. Though I am not sure that he is aware there is any danger there. But, please, do not take his lack of connection to the real world, or his expressed desire to not live as a vegetable, as an excuse to deny him food and water; I still believe there is a chance for intelligence to sprout, when his past is exorcised.

May

27

2005

Kerry Did, But, Did Not Sign SF 180

Filed Under Lies, Corruption and Scandals | Comments Off

It seems I may have previously mentioned my disgust [!] [!] [!] [!] with John Kerry’s failure to keep his word with regard to allowing us access to his military records?

Now it seems he claims to have signed the SF 180, which is required on his part by rule, allowing the citizens of the USA to see his military records. Technically, he may have, thereby, kept his promise, made to us during his apppearance on Meet The Press, to sign the Standard Form 180. One problem, signing the form does not release the information, unless he then sends the signed form to the proper authorities.

Clever Senator, you weakly fulfill the terms of the agreement, (signing the SF 180), while scandulously keeping your records secret. You must have a lot to hide John Kerry.

May

27

2005

Florida Mother Pro-Active Against Sex Offender

Filed Under Law and Ethics | 1 Comment

A worthy effort yields results. Bus stop moved away from home of sex offender.

Raymond has not approached any of the neighborhood children since his move to the area in March. But, the mother of two said, she’s not taking any chances

Bravo for this lady. The neighborhood school bus stop was on a corner where a sex offender lived, she got the bus stop moved to another site. Great work, and she is willing to council others who find themselves in similar circumstances, great charity.

“I’m really excited,” she said. “I didn’t just do it for my kids, or the neighborhood

May

25

2005

Detainees Charges Dubious

Filed Under Law and Ethics | 4 Comments

There is well-worn maxim which acknowledges that, if asked, all prisoners say they are innnocent of the crime for which they were sentenced. Criminals, afterall, are not the most credible among us.

It seems there is a parrallel when it comes to how the detainees at Guantanamo descibe their treatment; they say that the guards are abusive. What a revelation? Prisoners claim they are being mistreated, and they are innocent too. Right (heavy sarcasm).

It may be that the Newsweeak story about a Koran being flushed down a toilet is a case of a captive blaming the guard for an action of the captive.

Pentagon officials have said recently that the public claims by released detainees were not credible and that the terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay had been trained to make such false claims.

Indeed, the FBI records cite at least one instance in which a detainee is said to have falsely claimed that a guard had dropped a Quran. “In actuality the detainee dropped the Quran and then blamed the guard. Many other detainees reacted to this claim,” the FBI document said, and that sparked an uprising “on or about 19-20 July 2002.”

How big should that headline be in your local newspaper? Very big, indeed.

May

24

2005

Americana Photo Of The Day

Filed Under Politics | Comments Off

McCain In The Toilet.JPE

My Book, My Toilet, My Feelings

John McCain has disappointed me for the last time. He shall henceforth be known as John McChamberlain, AKA John The Appeaser.

May

24

2005

The Senate Republican define themselves

Filed Under Politics | 1 Comment

Main Entry: Senate Republican
Part of Speech: noun
Pronunciation Key: sen�ate re�pub�li�can (snt) (r-pbl-kn)
Definition: Senate Republican: A member of the upper house of the United States Congress belonging to the Republican Party of the United States.
Synonyms: Cowards, big babies, caitiffs, chickens, craven, curs, dastards, deserters, faint-hearts, fraidy cats, funks, gutless, gutless wonders, invertebrates, jellyfish, malingerers, milksops, milquetoasts, mollycoddles, mice, poltroons, punks, quitters, rabbits, recreants, scaredy-cats, shirkers, sissies, skulkers, sneaks, turkeys, weak sisters, weaklings, yellowbellies, amoeba, emasculates, faint-hearts, forceless, frightened, impotent, inadequate, ineffective, ineffectual, invertebrate, irresolute, lily-livered, nerveless, pithless, soft, spiritless, squeamish, submissive, timid, vacillating, weak, weak-kneed, weak-willed, yellow, failures, also-rans, deadbeats, defeated, disadvantaged, duds, failures, fall guys, flops, flunkies, lemons, turkeys, underdogs, washouts, deceivers, dishonest, double, double-dealers, duplicity, falseness, giveaway, Judas kiss, perfidy, sellout, treachery, treason, trickery, unfaithfulness.

May

24

2005

Reality Check May 24, 2005

Filed Under Law and Ethics | 6 Comments

As the debate on stem cell research goes forward, remember that there are three types of stem cells acquired for research.

(1) Adult Stem Cells
(2) Umbilical Cord Stem Cells
(3) Embryonic Stem Cells

Thus far, only research using the first two types have yielded results. The third type, the cells from living embryos, are the controversial ones. Some people believe these cells to be the equivalent of a human being, other people don’t care if anyone is offended by the destruction of these life forms. So, when you hear someone talking of stem cells, make sure that you are given an account of which type is being discussed. If you hear a report which does not differentiate between the types; you are not getting the whole story.

May

23

2005

Even more “infallibly optimistic” than Hugh Hewitt

Filed Under Politics | 3 Comments

A group of “moderate” Senators from both sides of the isle have reached a “deal” on judicial nominations. After I read this from Michelle Malkin and the following from Kos (no link to the “Screw ‘em” pig, look for it at RealClearPolitics if you must), I was infuriated and completely despondent:

There’ll be more outrage from their side, since quite frankly, they lost. Obviously we didn’t get everything we wanted, but they lost the ability to have carte blanche on the next supreme court justice.
I was preparing a barn-burner of a post, agreeing with John at Power Line when he said: “The infallibly optimistic Hugh Hewitt can’t put much of a spin on this one.”

Then I calmed down.

Then I calmed some more.

Then I read Ace and his commenters, who riled me up again. Then I calmed down again.

I think I’ve come to a realization:

If we want to be in the majority, we need to put up with all the psychopathic loons like John McCain for a while, until we’ve gone through a long, slow purge of the liberalism in our society. It’s like draining the puss from an infected wound, you’ve got to squeeze it and irrigate it, and peel out some of the living tissue to get it cleaned, until there’s nothing left but the bare, raw, healthy flesh.

We’ll slowly get what we want, but it hurts like hell. It feels like we’re only making things worse, but we’re making baby steps of progress, while the other side thinks they’re still winning. It’s like seemingly consenting to rape, but while the beast is occupied with his pants around his ankles, you’re really pulling out a knife.

By the end of the week, we’ll have three more conservatives on the Appeals bench, including the SCOTUS-worthy Janice Brown. Meanwhile, we’ll have confirmed the names of the seven weakest pansies in the Republican Party, whom we can target mercilessly (eight, if you count the useless dope of a Majority Leader, who can’t even keep a flagpole standing straight up), and the names of the seven most scared Democrats in their ever-dwindling circle of naysayers.

Don’t look at this as a defeat, my brothers and sisters – look at it as the next opportunity in the Karl Rove Rope-a-Dope Follies. Wait for the rebound, after we’ve confirmed these three.

May

23

2005

Reality Check May 23, 2005

Filed Under Politics | 5 Comments

Isn’t the Democratic Party which intends to filibuster the President’s judicial nominees the same Party which made such a ruckus about how every vote should count just last November?

May

23

2005

Service interruption

Filed Under Internet and Blogging | Comments Off

If you’ve had trouble reaching the site in the last 24 hours, we had a slight glitch when our account was moved to a new server at the host company without us being informed. If you’re reading this, you’re probably past it by now, but FYI you may see strange things from us until the new IP for the domain is propagated around the ‘net. Thanks for your patience.

May

21

2005

Remembering Daniel Pearl

Filed Under War and Terrorism | Comments Off

The current flap over the ilegally attained photos of Saddam Hussein caused me to recall the photos of Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg and others taken hostage and killed by terrorists. I did a Google search and came up with this page of images. There are pictures of Mr. Pearl and Mr. Berg (and others) both as hostages and dead.

Today there is a concern about photos of a prisoner whose dictatorial rule was brutal, and all I can think of are the gruesome photos of the slain innocents. I considered posting about the comparison between the two types of photos; and considered presenting the photo of Pearl in death, opposite a square containing the words, “Any photo of Saddam in captivity”. (I did not want to provide another forum for a Saddam picture which should never have been shown.) But there is no point there. The photos of Saddam should have never been public, and I hope they catch and punish those who made it happen. And, I quickly learned that I could not stomach the pictures of Mr. Pearl. That one photo made me think of the other fooled me into examining if there was a nexus worth mentioning.

But, alas, after a few tries, the subject was boring me and I decided to let it go. Then, as I was ready to close the Google page, I noticed an advertisement on the right side of the page:

Daniel pearl
Deals on Daniel pearl shoes
Compare prices and save now!
Zollop.com

Talk about shock and awe! What cruel joke is this, I thought? Are they actually selling Mr. Pearl’s shoes? Tribute shoes? This can not be?

And it isn’t. There is a shoe designer with the given name Daniel who sells a shoe he calls Pearl! Obviously this man is oblivious to the real world. What an insensitive product name, what an unfortunate ad placement. Perhaps this shoe salesman should use his last name, Green, instead of Daniel, and accept the confusion of Green pearl shoes, over that of Daniel pearl shoes.

Moving on.

Just above that ill-named/placed ad was a link to an interview with Mr. Pearl’s widow, Marianne. Now, three years after he was confirmed dead, it is good to hear her optimism, and to read these words she spoke in 2004.

They want to destroy hope, therefore I shall preserve it by any possible means.

They want to kill trust. Thus I will reach out to others, Africans, Asians, Arabs, Americans and Jews alike.

They want to imprison people in labels and stereotypes. I will strive to maintain a dialogue, always focusing on the individuals rather than the symbol.

They want to kill joy in me, thus I will laugh again.

They want to paralyze me, therefore I will take action. They want to silence me–therefore I will speak out.

From a speech given by Mariane Pearl in Sydney, Australia in March 2004.

And this from the interview:

I know that at no point Danny begged, and I know that through, for instance, the photographs of him. In one there is a gun pointed at him and he has a smile on his face–how much stronger can you be than that? In another one he had shackles, but he’s doing V for victory, and in the other he gives the finger. Every way possible he communicates his spirit. I think that’s what I call a mighty heart, someone who holds onto their belief until the end.

A brave man needlessly lost.Daniel Pearl.jpg

May

21

2005

Rethinking Newsweek

Filed Under History, Lies, Corruption and Scandals, Literature | Comments Off

The headline staring at me from the magazine rack as I got milk this morning was, “The Real George Washington”. Great, I thought, just what we need is more revisionism – and from journalists no less. One might wonder if Newsweek was trying desperately to make a certain statement after last week’s wholly unreal Koran-flushing story. (Indeed, the word appears again at the Newsweek website, where one “web exclusive” is entitled, “The GOP

May

20

2005

Ending judicial filibusters… an idea whose time has come

Filed Under Race and Prejudice | 1 Comment

Last week Senator Robert Byrd took to the floor of the Senate to, in his mind, uphold a Senate tradition. In a verbal sword fight with Senator Bill Frist, Senator Byrd said:

You have a shirttail full of nominees, and you’re going to wreck Senate tradition.
Wreck Senate tradition? Well let’s just take a closer look at that “tradition” shall we.
At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill’s manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate.

The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities – including private businesses offering public services – such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land.

So blocking Civil Rights legislation is the “tradition” Senator Byrd wants to preserve? How illustrative.
Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the thirty-seven years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.
Thirty-seven years? Can that be right, that the filibuster was used successfully by Senator Byrd and his ilk for thirty-seven years to prevent the passage – or even a vote – of a civil rights bill? Wow… that some “tradition” alright. But is that a “tradition” we as Americans should be proud of and want to preserve?

Three of the nominations most vehemently opposed by the Senate Democrats are Henry Saad, Priscilla Owen, and Janice Rogers Brown. What do these three have in common? Well, they’re all conservative, but is it such a surprise that a conservative President has nominated conservative justices? No. And that he has the right to do so is in no way illegal or unconstitutional. But more importantly, they are all minorities. In June of 1964 Janice Rogers Brown was 15 years old and living in California, her family having just moved there from Alabama. What do you think her chances of becoming a lawyer and State Supreme Court Justice would have been – even in the progressive state of California – had Senator Robert C. Byrd and his cronies been successful with the 1964 filibuster in the same way they had been for the prior thirty-seven years? And doesn’t it seem ironic that the same party – even the same man – who had tried to maintain the servile subjugation status quo of her and millions of other Americans is trying to use the same filibuster tool to deny her today what they were unable to deny her then?

It seems to me that Senator Robert Byrd and the Democrats don’t really seem to care for minority rights unless, of course, they are the ones in the minority. And it seems Senator Byrd specifically has a problem with strong black women. In any case, some “traditions”, like slavery, keeping women at home and out of the workplace, or children going to work at age ten, were concepts whose time has come and gone. Ending judicial filibusters that allow a tyranny of the (political) minority is also an idea whose time has come.

May

18

2005

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

Filed Under Internet and Blogging | 1 Comment

Heh.

Update: It seems that great minds think alike.

May

16

2005

Putrescence

Filed Under Lies, Corruption and Scandals | Comments Off

I’ve been procrastinating saying anything about the Newsweek/Koran scandal (recap at Malkin), for lack of anything profound to add. Best I came up with was a skit where Dan Rather calls Michael Isikoff, and his secretary says, “Mr. Isikoff, it’s Mr. Rather on line 3, wanting to thank you for saving his reputation by comparison….” Yah, lame.

Anyway, our friends at Cox & Forkum do their usual exemplary job of saying the same thing, only with about 18 fewer or 982 more words, depending how you count them:

05.05.15.Flushed-X.gif

About says it all, I think.

Next Page →

  • Featured Sponsor

  • Recent Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories