Thursday, March 31, 2005

"Why People Hate Journalists"

Jonah Goldberg runs a reader's note on The Corner:

From The Washington Post (Braniagan):(my emphasis)

The death of Schiavo, 41, ended the court battle that had pitted her husband, who wanted to take her off artificial life support, against her parents and siblings, who sought to keep her alive at all costs. But the death appeared unlikely to quell the broader controversy fueled by the Schiavo case, one that set right-to-life, antiabortion and conservative religious groups -- with backing from President Bush and Republican leaders in Congress -- against advocates of a "right to die" when the brain no longer functions.

An Alternative Version...

The death of Schiavo, 41, ended the court battle that had pitted her estranged husband, backed by his current girlfriend and his quirky attorney George Felos, who wanted to end her life and cremate her remains, against her parents and siblings, who sought to keep her alive in the hope that she might yet recover.. But her death appeared unlikely to quell the broader controversy fueled by the Schiavo case, one that united a wide range of views, including civil rights advocate Jesse Jackson, and Pro-Life campaigner Randall Terry, to pretest her mistreatment by the Florida judicial system -- with backing from President Bush, his brother Florida Governor Jeb Bush and a bipartisan group of legislators in Congress -- against advocates of euthanasia on demand.

The *objective* MSM using loaded and dishonest language to smear non-liberals and non-worshippers of the Culture of Death?


Muder Accomplished!!!

A glorious days for the forces on the side of the Culture of Death.

Terri Schiavo, the severely brain-damaged woman who spent 15 years connected to a feeding tube in an epic legal and medical battle that went all the way to the White House and Congress, died Thursday, 13 days after the tube was removed. She was 41.

Schiavo died at the Pinellas Park hospice where she lay for years while her husband and her parents fought over her in the nation's longest, most bitter - and most heavily litigated - right-to-die dispute.

The feud between the parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, and their son-in-law continued even after her death: The Schindlers' spiritual advisers said the couple had been at their daughter's bedside minutes before the end came, but were not there at the moment of her death because Michael Schiavo did not want them in the room.

"And so his heartless cruelty continues until this very last moment," said the Rev. Frank Pavone. He added: "This is not only a death, with all the sadness that brings, but this is a killing, and for that we not only grieve that Terri has passed but we grieve that our nation has allowed such an atrocity as this and we pray that it will never happen again."

A hardy round of applause for Michael "The Starver" Schiavo who managed to have the courts execute the woman he wasn't man enough to divorce. Satan just tossed some extra-special super-hot-burning coal on the flaming sh*tpile you'll occupying after you shuffle off your mortal coil, asstackler! Enjoy!

BTW: South Park's "Best Friends Forever" episode last night was a brilliant example of their insightgul social commentary as they really stuck it to both sides of this issue, but also strongly alluded to The Starver's ulterior motives. Catch the rerun this weekend by all means.

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

We're doomed!!! "Two-thirds of world's resources 'used up'"

Remember such enviro-scare books as "The Late Great Planet Earth"? Well, elite hand-wringing over the environment is still a good racket for superior liberals to terrify the rest of us with.

The short of it is the human race is EVIL and ruining everything and we're all gonna die!!!! I'm sure these Annointed Ones don't consider themselves lowly humans and thus aren't part of the problem, but all you NASCAR fans and Jesus Freaks are on notice. Got it?

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Terri Schiavo: Judicial Murder

As we roll into Day 12 of The Slow-Motion Murder of Terri Schiavo Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice checks in with some scathing comments:

For all the world to see, a 41-year-old woman, who has committed no crime, will die of dehydration and starvation in the longest public execution in American history.

She is not brain-dead or comatose, and breathes naturally on her own. Although brain-damaged, she is not in a persistent vegetative state, according to an increasing number of radiologists and neurologists.

Among many other violations of her due process rights, Terri Schiavo has never been allowed by the primary judge in her case—Florida Circuit Judge George Greer, whose conclusions have been robotically upheld by all the courts above him—to have her own lawyer represent her.

While lawyers and judges have engaged in a minuet of death, the American Civil Liberties Union, which would be passionately criticizing state court decisions and demanding due process if Terri were a convict on death row, has shamefully served as co-counsel for her husband, Michael Schiavo, in his insistent desire to have her die.

Months ago, in discussing this case with ACLU executive director Anthony Romero, and later reading ACLU statements, I saw no sign that this bastion of the Bill of Rights has ever examined the facts concerning the egregious conflicts of interest of her husband and guardian Michael Schiavo, who has been living with another woman for years, with whom he has two children, and has violated a long list of his legal responsibilities as her guardian, some of them directly preventing her chances for improvement. Judge Greer has ignored all of them.

Michael Schiavo, who says he loves and continues to be devoted to Terri, has provided no therapy or rehabilitation for his wife (the legal one) since 1993. He did have her tested for a time, but stopped all testing in 1993. He insists she once told him she didn't want to survive by artificial means, but he didn't mention her alleged wishes for years after her brain damage, while saying he would care for her for the rest of his life.

In death penalty cases, defense counsel for retarded and otherwise mentally disabled clients submit extensive medical tests. Ignoring the absence of complete neurological exams, supporters of the deadly decisions by Judge Greer and the trail of appellate jurists keep reminding us how extensive the litigation in this case has been—19 judges in six courts is the mantra. And more have been added. So too in many death penalty cases, but increasingly, close to execution, inmates have been saved by DNA.

As David Gibbs, the lawyer for Terri's parents, has pointed out, there has been a manifest need for a new federal, Fourteenth Amendment review of the case because Terri's death sentence has been based on seven years of "fatally flawed" state court findings—all based on the invincible neglect of elementary due process by Judge George Greer.

I will be returning to the legacy of Terri Schiavo in the weeks ahead because there will certainly be long-term reverberations from this case and its fracturing of the rule of law in the Florida courts and then the federal courts—as well as the disgracefully ignorant coverage of the case by the great majority of the media, including such pillars of the trade as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Miami Herald, and the Los Angeles Times as they copied each other's misinformation, like Terri Schiavo being "in a persistent vegetative state."

Do you know that nearly every major disability rights organization in the country has filed a legal brief in support of Terri's right to live?

Go read it all and note that Hentoff is not:

1. A "Jesus freak" - in fact, he's a self-proclaimed atheist.

B. A conservative - in fact, he's one of those people who probably doesn't watch "24" because of all the human rights violations and torture any above-average episode usually includes.

3. A Republican - Yeah, anyone to the right of Stalin could get a job at the Voice.

Saturday, March 26, 2005

Happy Easter!!!

Image hosted by

Many Germans Want Berlin Wall Back

More proof that freedom is wasted on Europe for their disturbing enthusiam for fascist government and socialism leads them to prefer living as slaves instead of free people.

We need to pull all our troops out of there and take the phone off the hook for when those ingrates call for help when they realize they've got a serious Islamofascist problem outside their doorsteps.

Friday, March 25, 2005

Nothing says respect for life like a good contract hit!

Heard on the news that some asshole sent out an e-mail or something putting a $250,000 bounty on The Starver's head and another $50K on some judge who had ruled against saving Terri. What? This guy run out of abortionists to shoot?!?

Kinda hard to get sympathy for saving one person's life while demanding that others get killed in the process. Jerk. Enjoy prison, bitch!!!

WTF?!? Iraq's insurgents ‘seek exit strategy'?!?

So says the Financial Times:

Many of Iraq's predominantly Sunni Arab insurgents would lay down their arms and join the political process in exchange for guarantees of their safety and that of their co-religionists, according to a prominent Sunni politician.

Insurgent leaders fear coming out into the open to talk for fear of being targeted by US military or Iraqi security forces' raids, he said.

Duh. Ya think?

Unlike Mr Zarqawi's followers, who are thought to be responsible for the big suicide bomb attacks on Iraqi civilian targets, the other Sunni insurgents are more likely to plant bombs and carry out ambushes against security forces and US troops active near their homes.

Sharif Ali said the success of Iraq's elections dealt the insurgents a demoralising blow, prompting them to consider the need to enter the political process.

So, the elections on Jan. 30th were demoralizing to the insurgents? Gee, I could've sworn that we should've delayed the elections and given the bad guys more time to slaughter our troops and blow up civilians because the situation was unstable. :-
Another reason why a President Feckless Crapweasel would've been a disaster like President No Controlling Legal Authority would've been. Dubya may be a lot of lame things, but the alternatives WERE clearly worse.

Censorship and Starvation at The Corner.

A couple of quick bits totally ganked from the Corner. First, Andrew Stuttaford has this to say about those America-haters over seas in the Old Country:

One of the more sinister aspects of EU integration is the way that the existence of a common EU extradition warrant can be used to punish behavior that would not actually be criminal in the country where it took place.

Lets take a look at the case of Gerhard Haderer. He’s an Austrian cartoonist who published a satire on the life of Jesus. Like most satires, it is not very respectful, but it contravenes no Austrian law. Unbeknown to him, however, the book was republished in Greece, a country not known these days for its attachment to freedom. The book was banned, Haderer was found guilty of blasphemy and sentenced to jail. He’s appealing, but if he loses, he can under EU law be extradited to Greece to serve his time and Austria cannot do anything about it.

That’s bad enough in its own right, but the implications are worse.

What, for example, if a writer posts an article on the internet that is perfectly legal in his country, but contravenes the law elsewhere in another EU state (perhaps one of those ludicrous, but increasingly fashionable and increasingly repressive laws directed against ‘xenophobia’)? If that article is then downloaded in that country, is there a chance that its author could find himself extradited, convicted and silenced?

I think there is.

Nice. I'm glad America hasn't proceeded down the path to be more like the Europeans as the liberals constantly whine we should because they're oh-so-advanced over there compared to us stupid NASCAR fans here.

Of course, liberals love Europe because Europe loves the same things they do: anti-Semitism, genocide, fascist governments, fat hairy men in Speedos and a common hatred of America.

Next up is this observation from Jonah Goldberg:

I listened to Michael Schiavo's lawyer on the radio complaining at the outrageous rhetoric from opponents of having her feeding tube removed. Starvation and dehydration, he explained, are part of the natural process of death. Thousands of patients dying from cancer and the like stop eating when the end comes he explained. It is natural to refuse sustenance when dying, he assured reporters more than a bit indignantly.

The only problem is that she hasn't refused food and water, she's been denied food and water. She isn't dying of something that causes her to taking food and fluids, she's dying because she's being denied such things.

If she must be put to death can we at least speak clearly that this is what's being done?

No, because the Big Lie campaign won't allow it, you self-hating Jewish sellout Jesus freak!!!!


A lesson for the children...

Pinellas County Sheriff's deputies, and Pinellas Park, Fla., police officers arrest 10-year-old Joshua Heldreth, of Charlotte, N.C., for trespassing on Woodside Hospice property in Pinellas park, Fla. Heldreth was attempting to bring Terri Schiavo a glass of water. Schiavo's feeding tube was removed by court order Friday, March 18, 2005. (AP Photo/Chris O'Meara)

Gee, I thought the Left loved civil disobedience. (I guess only when it suits THEIR agenda.)

The New York Times: Neither 'Starvation' Nor the Suffering It Connotes Applies to Schiavo, Doctors Say

The Big Lie campaign of "Terri ain't suffering" rolls on with this steaming load of manure which goes to great length to calm the consciences of those who might waver in their support of the gruesome execution of Terri Schiavo by telling us that this useless person doesn't feel the pain that's being inflicted on her, so it's all good. Move along, citizens. Nothing to see here.

In the case of Ms. Schiavo, experts say, the potential for discomfort is nonexistent because higher functions like consciousness and the ability to sense pain were destroyed 15 years ago when she suffered the loss of oxygen to her brain.

Dr. Joseph Fins, chief of the medical ethics division of New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell hospital, said that "the window of opportunity to be diagnosed as even minimally conscious" closes within three months of oxygen-deprivation brain damage.

Based on evidence accepted by the courts that Ms. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state and not in a more conscious state, Dr. Fins added, "the part of brain that allows one to suffer is not functioning."

And that, he said, "should be reassuring to people who are concerned."

Of course, those who've seen Terri's records around the Interweb and recall that they've been prescribing analgesics to relieve her monthly menstrual pain may wonder how a woman who needed relief from cramps now suddenly doesn't feel that she's being dried-out alive.

Feud may be as much over money as principle

It's all about the Benjamins, baby! Too long to excerpt adequately, but it provides some more context for the history of the contenders. Of course, it's slanted to propagate the "I wouldn't want to live like that" comments - something that I'm sure most able-bodied people have blithely said in their lives. But it gets different when you actually look into that abyss, ya know? Not very helpful if someone can profit from your being pushed in, is it?

Florida: Undisclosed evidence may free man from death row

Gee, does this sound like what I've been arguing all week?:

More than 20 years ago, a jury took only about an hour to convict James Floyd of murdering an 86-year-old woman in her home. They took another hour to send him to death row.

The evidence seemed compelling. Police caught Floyd cashing the victim's stolen checks. A bloodied sock, a jailhouse snitch, tire tracks and some hairs also were presented at trial.

But on Thursday, the Florida Supreme Court tossed out Floyd's conviction and death sentence because prosecutors didn't share other important evidence with defense attorneys. The ruling called the new evidence "unsettling."

That evidence included statements from a neighbor who claimed to see two other men entering the old woman's St. Petersburg house about the time of her death, as well as inconsistent reports from detectives and information about how the snitch tried to leverage his testimony for a lighter sentence on his own charges.

"It's outrageous. It's important evidence," said Pam Izakowitz, Floyd's Tampa attorney. "It could exonerate Floyd. He didn't kill her."

And the blood-thirsty worshippers of the Culture of Death STILL insist that they're only concerned about "her wishes" being fulfilled.

Whose wishes again?

"Evolving Standards of Decency"

As we roll into the eighth day of The Slow-Motion Murder of Terri Schiavo The Weekly Standard's William Kristol notices that convicted murderers get more protection than brain-damaged women:

Thank God for our robed masters. If it weren't for them, Christopher Simmons might soon be executed. In September 1993, seven months shy of his 18th birthday, Simmons decided it would be interesting to kill someone. He told his buddies they could get away with it because they were still minors. He broke into the house of Shirley Crook in Jefferson County, Missouri, bound her hands and feet, drove her to a bridge, covered her face with tape, and threw her into the Meramec River, where she drowned. He confessed to the crime, and was sentenced to death according to the laws of Missouri.

Last month the Supreme Court saved Simmons's life. The citizens, legislators, and governor of Missouri (and those of 19 other states) had, it turned out, fallen grievously and unconstitutionally behind "the evolving standards of decency that mark a maturing society." Five justices decided that the Constitution prevented anyone under the age of 18 from being sentenced to death. So Christopher Simmons will live.

It appears, at this writing, that Terri Schiavo will not. In a series of decisions in Florida state courts, Circuit Judge George Greer and his colleagues have chosen to credit the claim of Michael Schiavo that his wife long ago expressed a well-considered wish to be killed if she found herself in a disabled state. Of course, there is no reason to believe she ever seriously considered she might find herself in such a state. They have chosen to deny efforts by Terri Schiavo's mother and father to assume responsibility for their daughter's care. They have chosen to strike down legislation passed by the Florida legislature, and signed by the governor, to permit the governor to allow water and nutrition to be given to patients who leave no written directive, and to allow some recourse for family members who wish to challenge the withholding of nutrition and hydration.

Last week, federal judges chose to dismiss, out of hand, extraordinary legislation passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the president, which asked the federal courts to take a fresh look at the case. The federal judges chose not to explain why "evolving standards of decency" might not allow Terri Schiavo to be kept alive until the case was argued in federal court. The judges assumed nothing new or meaningful would be learned from such an argument, or that the federal legislation might be found unconstitutional. The federal judges chose not to bother to explain why either might be the case.

So our judges deserve some criticism. But we should not be too harsh. For example, it would be wrong to suggest, as some conservatives have, that our judicial elite is systematically biased against "life." After all, they have saved the life of Christopher Simmons. It would be wrong to argue, as some critics have, that our judges systematically give too much weight to the husband's wishes in situations like Terri Schiavo's. After all, our judges have for three decades given husbands (or fathers) no standing at all to participate in the decision whether to kill their unborn children. It would be wrong to claim that our judges don't take seriously legislation passed by the elected representatives of the people. After all, our judges are committed to upholding the "rule of law"--though not, perhaps, the rule of actual laws passed by actual lawmakers. And it would be wrong to accuse our judges of being heartless. After all, Judges Carnes and Hull of the 11th U.S. Circuit told us, "We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children."

So do we all. They deserve a judiciary that is respectful of democratic self-government and committed to a genuine constitutionalism. The Bush administration should nominate such judges, and Congress should confirm them. And the president and Congress should lead a serious national debate on the distinction between judicial independence and judicial arrogance, and on the difference between judicial review and judicial supremacy. After all, we are a "maturing society," as the Supreme Court has told us. Perhaps it is time, in mature reaction to this latest installment of what Hugh Hewitt has called a "robed charade," to rise up against our robed masters, and choose to govern ourselves. Call it Terri's revolution.

"Robed masters." That sums it up and explains why Democrats are so on the jihad against confirming Dubya's nominees: They've relied on the courts to fabricate the "rights" they want and to strike down the will of the people - remember, Democrats DO NOT believe in democracy, they are straight up fascists (as the dictionary defines them) - and if judges who actually understand what the proper role of the judiciary is get on the bench, their power will be lessed ever more.

More with Harriet McBryde Johnson...

on The Corner on National Review Online as they have a snip of the transcript of her appearance on Aaron Brown's show last night (I presume Weds.):

BROWN: Let me try and ask the question a little bit differently. No state in the country allows a non-terminally ill person to commit suicide. Every state in the country would intervene in that matter.

Ms. Schiavo clearly to me is not terminally ill in the way we think about terminal illness. So, regardless of her wishes -- and let's just accept for this moment that those in fact are her wishes -- regardless of those wishes, should -- is it appropriate for a non- terminal person to end their life or to have assistance in ending their life?

JOHNSON: Well, I think the key distinction is that we have an incapacitated person and someone else making the decision.

I would say that there are a few decisions that each of us can only make for ourselves. And one of those is to give up our lives. And here we have a substitute decision-maker claiming to have the right to end another person's life, again, based on disability, which is a stigmatized minority group. But one person says, I can end my wife's life because of her disability.

And I think, for that decision to be valid, there ought to be real solemn documents, like a properly executed health care proxy, that says, absolutely, after advice, this is what I want, because the truth is that many, many people say casually throughout their lives, I'd rather be dead than disabled. I've had people come up to me and say, I would rather be dead if I had to live like you.

But the reality is that most people adapt. Most people go on to lead good lives that they could never have imagined. And this case is a particularly tough one. But the law applies to all people. And I think it's just a dangerous idea to say that we're going to let a substitute decision-maker authorize the killing of another person based on fairly casual statements they made without any particular knowledge of what they were talking about.

Dennis Miller once said in one of his trademark rants - I can't recall the subject - "The worst day alive is better than the best day dead." and that's always stuck with me.

If this was Terri trying to punch her own ticket with the help of Dr. Jack, much of the last week's drama wouldn't have happened, but since we have the asstackler scumbag of a sh*theel husband calling for her death, I think we should be trying a little harder to make sure she's hopeless before acting as torturous contract killers for this pig.

More with Harriet McBryde Johnson...

and The Corner on National Review Online as they have a snip of the transcript of her appearance on Aaron Brown's show last night (I presume Weds.):

BROWN: Let me try and ask the question a little bit differently. No state in the country allows a non-terminally ill person to commit suicide. Every state in the country would intervene in that matter.

Ms. Schiavo clearly to me is not terminally ill in the way we think about terminal illness. So, regardless of her wishes -- and let's just accept for this moment that those in fact are her wishes -- regardless of those wishes, should -- is it appropriate for a non- terminal person to end their life or to have assistance in ending their life?

JOHNSON: Well, I think the key distinction is that we have an incapacitated person and someone else making the decision.

I would say that there are a few decisions that each of us can only make for ourselves. And one of those is to give up our lives. And here we have a substitute decision-maker claiming to have the right to end another person's life, again, based on disability, which is a stigmatized minority group. But one person says, I can end my wife's life because of her disability.

And I think, for that decision to be valid, there ought to be real solemn documents, like a properly executed health care proxy, that says, absolutely, after advice, this is what I want, because the truth is that many, many people say casually throughout their lives, I'd rather be dead than disabled. I've had people come up to me and say, I would rather be dead if I had to live like you.

But the reality is that most people adapt. Most people go on to lead good lives that they could never have imagined. And this case is a particularly tough one. But the law applies to all people. And I think it's just a dangerous idea to say that we're going to let a substitute decision-maker authorize the killing of another person based on fairly casual statements they made without any particular knowledge of what they were talking about.

Dennis Miller once said in one of his trademark rants - I can't recall the subject - "The worst day alive is better than the best day dead." and that's always stuck with me.

If this was Terri trying to punch her own ticket with the help of Dr. Jack, much of the last week's drama wouldn't have happened, but since we have the asstackler scumbag of a sh*theel husband calling for her death, I think we should be trying a little harder to make sure she's hopeless before acting as torturous contract killers for this pig.

What it's like to die of thirst.

The Wittingshire blog has a piece called "Thirst" which has an excerpt from a book that researched "the experience of extreme water deprivation". Go read it because here's their comment afterwards:

Let's set aside the hunger issue, since that's not what's going to kill Terri Schiavo. If someone doesn't find a way to cut through the sanctimonious red tape and get water to her, she'll die of thirst. Why the graphic description? An LA Times story purports to reveal how positively enjoyable it is to die of hunger and thirst. It's true that the body kicks into a fast mode after a day or two without food. It's also true that people in the last stages of severe illnesses like cancer lose their appetite and may die most easily by heeding their body's strange distaste for food or water.

But this isn't Terri Schiavo's situation. Her body was plump and healthy, not dying. Her brain is injured, yes, but there's heated debate about just how much she is aware of, how much she is sensing. Considerable evidence suggests she may be sensing a great deal. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, blocked Terri's doctors from performing the very tests that could resolve that controversy. Meanwhile, many in the mainstream media seem intent on blocking our understanding of just what it means to die of thirst.

The MSM is selling us another Big Lie, but what else could be expected from the salesmen of the Culture of Death? Step right up folks!

Ralph Nader Weighs In For Terri.

The weirdness just gets weirder as Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader, Author Wesley Smith call Upon Florida Courts, Gov. Bush and Concerned Citizens to Take any Legal Action Available to let Schiavo Live":

Contact: Ralph Nader, 202-387-8034; Wesley Smith, 510-886-8609

WASHINGTON, March 24 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader and Wesley J. Smith, author of the award winning book "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America" call upon the Florida Courts, Governor Jeb Bush and concerned citizens to take any legal action available to let Terri Schiavo live.

"A profound injustice is being inflicted on Terri Schiavo," Nader and Smith asserted today. "Worse, this slow death by dehydration is being imposed upon her under the color of law, in proceedings in which every benefit of the doubt-and there are many doubts in this case-has been given to her death, rather than her continued life."

Among the many injustices in this case, Nader and Smith point to the following:

The courts not only are refusing her tube feeding, but have ordered that no attempts be made to provide her water or food by mouth. Terri swallows her own saliva. Spoon feeding is not medical treatment. "This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, it has ordered her to be made dead," Nader and Smith assert.

The medical and rehabilitation experts are split on whether Terri is in a persistent vegetative state or whether Terri can be improved with therapy. There is only one way to know for sure- permit the therapy. That is the only way to resolve all doubts.

The court is imposing process over justice. After the first trial in this case, much evidence has been produced that should allow for a new trial-which was the point of the hasty federal legislation. If this were a death penalty case, this evidence would demand reconsideration. Yet, an innocent disabled woman is receiving less justice.

The federal and state governments are spending billions on what we are told will become miracle medical cures for people with all sorts of degenerative conditions, including brain damage. If this is so, why not permit Terri's parents and siblings who want to care for her do so in the hope that such cures are discovered?

Benefits of doubts should be given to life, not hastened death. This case is rife with doubt. Justice demands that Terri be permitted to live.

I guess ol' Ralph really wants the Democrats to hate him even more.

Thursday, March 24, 2005

And now for something completely different...

We need a break from the grief and arguing, so go here to Star Wars: The Official Site and peep the final trailer for Revenge of the Sith. I forgot to post it before, but it certainly looks BADASS!!! I'm totally packing a lightsaber in my pants for this one!!!

Equal Time For Opposing Viewpoints

Instapundit has a slew of bits here from sources arguing that the doctor whose affidavit was linked to below might not be a Big Deal after all and is in foul odor for not supporting stem cell research - another totem of the adherents of the Culture of Death and their utter disregard for life that they wish to exploit or extinguish.

Yesterday, there was another public challenge to Ms. Schiavo's well-established diagnosis: Florida governor Jeb Bush announced that a "very renowned neurologist," Dr. William Cheshire, had concluded that Terri had been misdiagnosed and that she was really only in a state of "minimal consciousness" rather than a persistent vegetative state. He used this "new diagnosis" to argue that "this new information raises serious concerns and warrants immediate action."

As it turns out, Dr. Cheshire is not "renowned" as a neurologist -- his limited publications focus on areas including headache pain and his opposition to stem cell research. Dr. Cheshire never conducted a physical examination of Ms. Schiavo, nor did he do neurological tests. . . . Let's call tripe when tripe is served.

Instapundit also didn't like Peggy Noonan's piece as being "over-the-top" and thinks she's succumbing to the hysteria that's sweeping both sides. Certainly has been a lot of that going around and I'm not excluding myself from scrutiny. I'm just really annoyed when liberals hypocritically pretend that they don't want government in our lives when that's the whole point of being a liberal: To rule those you consider beneath you in stature and intelligence.

He also has this note:

UPDATE: Reader Jean Tuttle emails: "Mr. Reynolds, I worked as a nurse in ICUs and ERs. I have no idea what kind of brain damage Mrs. Schiavo has ,but I find it hard to believe her EEG is flat.The patients I saw with flat EEGs couldn't breathe on their own, couldn't move or make any sound. As I said before I don't have any idea the amount of brain damage Mrs. Schiavo has, but I would bet the EEG isn"t flat. I think there is so much disinformation coming out of both sides of this ,that it is impossible to know what the facts are."

That last part is certainly true.

When Terri passes - wouldn't it be great if we wake up Easter Sunday to the news that she's dead, just like the Easter in which a machine gun toting INS agent was snatching Elian Gonzales to deliver into Communist subjugation? - there will be few things certain, but these:

1. The Right will mourn their helplessness.

B. The Left will celebrate their revenge against the "Jesus freaks" and the chipping away of the value of life.

3. The Starver will no longer be cheating on his wife, since he'll have succeeded in snuffing her and...

4. Terri will be dead.

A not very holy Holy Week, is it? :(

Not Dead at All - Why Congress was right to stick up for Terri Schiavo

Slate has this story by Harriet McBryde Johnson which lists 10 issues that are being obscured in all the dust tossed up by the death-before-life side. A disability-rights lawyer with congenital health problems, she concludes:

In the Senate, a key supporter of a federal remedy was Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, a progressive Democrat and longtime friend of labor and civil rights, including disability rights. Harkin told reporters, "There are a lot of people in the shadows, all over this country, who are incapacitated because of a disability, and many times there is no one to speak for them, and it is hard to determine what their wishes really are or were. So I think there ought to be a broader type of a proceeding that would apply to people in similar circumstances who are incapacitated."

I hope against hope that I will never be one of those people in the shadows, that I will always, one way or another, be able to make my wishes known. I hope that I will not outlive my usefulness or my capacity (at least occasionally) to amuse the people around me. But if it happens otherwise, I hope whoever is appointed to speak for me will be subject to legal constraints. Even if my guardian thinks I'd be better off dead—even if I think so myself—I hope to live and die in a world that recognizes that killing, even of people with the most severe disabilities, is a matter of more than private concern.

What the mindless supporters of spousal homicide are ignoring is that it's not a bad thing to make sure we're not killing an innocent person. However, they appear more interested in saving convicts than the ill.

I can only hope that they never become infirm and someone applies the same value judgements over their lives.

In Love With Death

Less strident than Coulter is Peggy Noonan who is mighty unhappy over at OpinionJournal and calls out the hypocrisy of the Left in brilliant fashion. Buckle up:

Why are they so committed to this woman's death?

They seem to have fallen half in love with death.

I do not understand their certainty. I don't "know" that any degree of progress or healing is possible for Terri Schiavo; I only hope they are. We can't know, but we can "err on the side of life." How do the pro-death forces "know" there is no possibility of progress, healing, miracles? They seem to think they know. They seem to love the phrases they bandy about: "vegetative state," "brain dead," "liquefied cortex."

I do not understand why people who want to save the whales (so do I) find campaigns to save humans so much less arresting. I do not understand their lack of passion. But the save-the-whales people are somehow rarely the stop-abortion-please people.

The PETA people, who say they are committed to ending cruelty to animals, seem disinterested in the fact of late-term abortion, which is a cruel procedure performed on a human.

I do not understand why the don't-drill-in-Alaska-and-destroy-its-prime-beauty people do not join forces with the don't-end-a-life-that-holds-within-it-beauty people.

I do not understand why those who want a freeze on all death penalty cases in order to review each of them in light of DNA testing--an act of justice and compassion toward those who have been found guilty of crimes in a court of law--are uninterested in giving every last chance and every last test to a woman whom no one has ever accused of anything.

There are passionate groups of women in America who decry spousal abuse, give beaten wives shelter, insist that a woman is not a husband's chattel. This is good work. Why are they not taking part in the fight for Terri Schiavo? Again, what explains their lack of passion on this? If Mrs. Schiavo dies, it will be because her husband, and only her husband, insists she wanted to, or would want to, or said she wanted to in a hypothetical conversation long ago. A thin reed on which to base the killing of a human being.

Terri Schiavo may well die. No good will come of it. Those who are half in love with death will only become more red-fanged and ravenous.

And those who are still learning--our children--oh, what terrible lessons they're learning. What terrible stories are shaping them. They're witnessing the Schiavo drama on television and hearing it on radio. They are seeing a society--their society, their people--on the verge of famously accepting, even embracing, the idea that a damaged life is a throwaway life.

Our children have been reared in the age of abortion, and are coming of age in a time when seemingly respectable people are enthusiastic for euthanasia. It cannot be good for our children, and the world they will make, that they are given this new lesson that human life is not precious, not touched by the divine, not of infinite value.

Once you "know" that--that human life is not so special after all--then everything is possible, and none of it is good. When a society comes to believe that human life is not inherently worth living, it is a slippery slope to the gas chamber. You wind up on a low road that twists past Columbine and leads toward Auschwitz. Today that road runs through Pinellas Park, Fla.

And that's the short-sighted, selfish, hypocritical and evil nature of the Left and with every "victory" they are able to gain, the more likely society will coarsen and degrade and collapse ever more.

The fact that they'll be consumed by the ruins of their own initiation is cold comfort for we'll all be suffering alongside them, too.

Starved for justice

A restrained (by her usual standards) Ann Coulter discusses the issue and brings up a point that came up over dinner last night, but I didn't include in posts.

Democrats have called out armed federal agents in order to: 1) prevent black children from attending a public school in Little Rock, Ark. (National Guard), 2) investigate an alleged violation of federal gun laws in Waco, Texas (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms), and 3) deport a small boy to Cuba (Immigration and Naturalization Service).

So how about a Republican governor sending in the National Guard to stop an innocent American woman from being starved to death in Florida? Republicans like the military. Democrats get excited about the use of military force only when it's against Americans.

As important as it was to enforce the constitutional right to desegregated schools, isn't it also important to enforce Terri Schiavo's right to due process before she is killed by starvation?

Liberals' newfound respect for "federalism" is completely disingenuous. People who support a national policy on abortion are prohibited from ever using the word "federalism."

I note that whenever liberals talk about "federalism" or "states' rights," they are never talking about a state referendum or a law passed by the duly elected members of a state legislature – or anything voted on by the actual citizens of a state. What liberals mean by "federalism" is: a state court ruling. Just as "choice" refers to only one choice, "the rule of law" refers only to "the law as determined by a court."

Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. Any incorrect ruling will do, but my vote is for a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband.

Florida state court Judge George Greer – last heard from when he denied an order of protection to a woman weeks before her husband stabbed her to death – determined that Terri would have wanted to be starved to death based on the testimony of her husband, who was then living with another woman. (The judge also took judicial notice of the positions of O.J. Simpson, Scott Peterson and Robert Blake.) The husband also happened to be the only person present when the oxygen was cut off to Terri's brain in the first place. He now has two children with another woman.

Greer has refused to order the most basic medical tests for brain damage before condemning a woman to death. Despite all those years of important, searching litigation we keep hearing about, Terri has yet to receive either an MRI or a PET scan – although she may be allowed to join a support group for women whose husbands are trying to kill them.

Greer has cut off the legal rights of Terri's real family and made her husband (now with a different family) her sole guardian, citing as precedent the landmark "Fox v. Henhouse" ruling of 1893. Throughout the process that would result in her death sentence, Terri was never permitted her own legal counsel. Evidently, they were all tied up defending the right to life of child-molesting murderers.

In the middle of her sneering, she mentions something that really puts the spotlight on my problems with how this is happening: a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband.

Down the page, I've been going back in forth in the comments with a reader who - when he's not screaming "Jesus freaks", he moderates his tone with fairly proper spelling - claims his only interest is that the government butt out of private matters (which I guess includes incest) and blah-blah-woof-woof.

But here's the point that came up at dinner: Should a cheating spouse have final say on the life and death of the spouse they're cheating on?

This is my #1 problem with this case - this asstackler has refused to divorce his wife and has moved on and started a whole new family with another woman and now wants to claim the right to have her snuffed by claiming this is something they discussed.

Yeah, right. I wonder if Terri also said "If anything happens to me, I want you to move on and set up housekeeping with someone else, but make sure you kill me first. Hugs."

Doesn't really pass the reality check, does it?

TS-MMoTS: Day 7 - Strike Three!

The Supreme Court has refused to hear the case and unless the Florida Legislature or Gov. Jeb Bush find some way to gain custody of Terri, her torturous and cruel execution will go unabated. More to come...

Wednesday, March 23, 2005

Sworn Affidavit Says That Schiavo May Not Be In A PVS and a Further Challenge to Death Penalty Hypocrites.

This is the sworn affidavit of Dr. William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D. in which, as excerpted by KLJ at The Corner says:

This neurologist who Jeb Bush mentioned in his press conference earlier today, William Cheshire, says outright that he believes that "it can be ethically permissible to discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for parsons in a permanent vegetative state." But having "met and observed Ms. Schiavo in person" he doesn't believe this should be happening to Terri Schiavo.

He states that "There remain, in fact, huge uncertainties in regard to Terri's true neurological status." She hasn't been fully evaluated by a neurologist for three years, he says, has not had an MRI or a PET. And some of the technology to determine if a patient is in a minimally conscious state has only emerged in the last few years. "New facts have come to light in the last few years that should be weighed in the neurological assessment of Terri Schiavo."

He writes that Terri Schiavo “demonstrates a number of behaviors that I believe cast a reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS.” Among these observations, he pinpoints: “Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of familiar persons such as her parents or her nurses…Several times I witness Terri briefly, albeit inconsistently, laugh in response to a humoroius comment someone in the room had made. I did not see her laugh in the absence of someone else’s laughter.”..

There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3, 2002 examination by Dr. Hannesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a comfortable position, he says to her parents, “So we are going to have to roll her over….” Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying sound, “Ugh, ha, ha, ha,” presses her eyebrows together, and sadly grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no on is touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr’s comment and signals her anticipation of pain. This response suggests some degree of language processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be explained by simple reflex withdrawal.

…Terri Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous neurological diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and indicative of cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful neurological consideration, would not be expected in a persistent vegetative state.

Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on Terri’s behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water….

…How medicine and society choose to think about Terri Schiavo will influence what kind of people we will be as we evaluate and respond to the needs of the most vulnerable people among us. When serious doubts exist as to whether a cognitive impaired person is or is not consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved, it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life…

OK then, here's the challenge to those fervant death penality opponents who are hypocritically demanding that Terri be executed because it suits their pro-death, anti-Red State leanings: If you believe that condemned killers should be able to appeal time and again for up to 20 years on the basis that some scrap of evidence could surface that proves the innocence of the condemned and it would be tragic to wrongly execute an innocent man, why are you so adamantly opposed to allowing Terri a full examination with CURRENT technology so as to remove any doubt as to her condition?

Hmmm? A trial with multiple witnesses, a judge and jury, multiple appeals isn't good enough to kill a murderer, but the word of a worthless sack of manure husband is more than good enough to snuff a sick woman?!?


The Great Quandary

Saw on Andrew Sullivan's site that he approved of this William F. Buckley column about Terri Schiavo on National Review Online and I agree with it for the most part.

In the case of Terri Schiavo, orderly thought would have led us to believe that her treatment was the next of kin's to decide. But human concern for Mrs. Schiavo interposed qualifiers: The husband had attached himself to another woman, by whom another family had begun. This suggested a diluted moral, though not legal, authority of the husband. Then the father and the mother of the stricken girl argued to keep her alive — to keep her pulse beating. Terri is not, repeat not, brain dead, though she is unable to communicate. Meanwhile the courts of Florida were guided, or seemed to be, by precedents which treated as relevant only the absence of a living will by Mrs. Schiavo, and the legal recognition of her husband as head of the family. The two considerations estopped any movement by the courts to assume authority, as though she belonged to them.

But that question was not directly accosted by the judge, who said only that Terri's rights had not been abrogated. It was unseemly for critics to compare her end with that of victims of the Nazi regime. There was never a more industrious inquiry, than in the Schiavo case, into the matter of rights formal and inchoate. It is simply wrong, whatever is felt about the eventual abandonment of her by her husband, to use the killing language. She was kept alive for fifteen years, underwent a hundred medical ministrations, all of them in service of an abstraction, which was that she wanted to stay alive. There are laws against force-feeding, and no one will know whether, if she had had the means to convey her will in the matter, she too would have said, Enough.

That's what makes this mess so grievous: The system, as currently constructed, favors the asstackler who wants her dead dead DEAD! The fact that beyond the futile attempts to save her, nothing will be done to step in and stay the execution is a good day for the rule of law and a very, very bad day for Terri and all women with conniving enough husbands to game the system and assassinate their wives in full view and with the total support of the government.

You've come a long way baby!!!

Scrolling down, I see that Sullivan also has been musing about the pending GOP crackup between the Jesus-freak right-wing - AS has a stick up his ass about gay marriage (no pun/slur intended) - and the breath-takingly spendthrift liberals of which Dubya is the chief in this column at the UK Times. A snip:

On social policy the rifts are not as deep, largely because the religious right now all but owns the Republican party. Gone are the days when Ronald Reagan said: “The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralised authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

The Republicans have plans to intervene directly in many people’s lives — spending billions on sexual abstinence education, marriage counselling, anti-drug propaganda, a war on steroids, mentoring programmes for former prisoners, and on and on. Got a problem? Bush’s big government is here to help.

Where Republicans once believed that states should have priority over the federal government, Bush has pushed in the opposite direction. Last week the religious right wanted a federal ruling to prevent a Florida woman in a persistent vegetative state from having her life-support cut off. This is a job for the federal government?

They have overruled state laws on medical cannabis and tried to prevent states from making their own policies on gay civil marriage. In the 1980s Republicans wanted to abolish the federal Department of Education, believing local control was best. Bush has all but ended local control, introduced national standards and added a huge increase in federal spending. No wonder Ted Kennedy, the arch liberal Democratic senator, voted for the bill.

How these contradictions can be resolved is hard to see. Is conservatism now paternalist, spending huge amounts of federal money to guide people into more moral lives? Or is it about restraining government so people can make up their own minds how to live?

Do deficits matter? Is the point of foreign policy the pursuit of national interest or the spread of human freedom? Or are they inextricable? Are tax cuts defensible if accompanied by big spending rises? Is American libertarianism dead? Bush’s four years have put all these questions on the table.

In my view if a Democratic president had Bush’s record, the Republican party would have come close to impeaching him for his adventures in big government, fiscal insanity and foreign policy liberalism. But it swallowed its principles and covered up its differences to keep him (and itself) in power. The consequences are slowly becoming clear.

Allowing for his anger over gay marriage policy, Sullivan is a lot more right than wrong about the state of the Stupid Party and commentators like Hannity need to open a window because they're getting high on their own supply if they think they're not standing on a hill of contradictions. (Can't speak for Rush cuz I've been too busy lately to even check his site for the highlights.)

On his blog, he also writes about "THE CONSERVATIVE CRACK-UP II" in which he grinds his gay marriage axe a bit too much, but also properly calls out the hypocrisy of the RIGHT* in his closing graph:

The case also highlights - in another wonderful irony - how religious right morality even trumps civil marriage. It is simply amazing to hear the advocates of the inviolability of the heterosexual civil marital bond deny Terri Schiavo's legal husband the right to decide his wife's fate, when she cannot decide it for herself. Again, the demands of the religious right pre-empt constitutionalism, federalism, and even the integrity of the family. When conservatism means breaking up the civil bond between a man and his wife, you know it has ceased to be conservative. But we have known that for a long time now. Conservatism is a philosophy without a party in America any more. It has been hijacked by zealots and statists.

Ignore the Jesus-bashing and the point remains - the GOP doesn't believe what it says it does and are merely a statist party who allow God to be mentioned as opposed to the Dems, who are a statist party of atheists and/or minions of Satan.

* While I've been mostly railing about the hypocrisy on the Left, that doesn't mean I don't believe there is hypocrisy on the Right. It's just never really come up before, but in the future, as I have now, I will most certainly beat down the Right for behaving like the Left.

The Race to Kill Terri Schiavo Before the Public Learns the Truth

The full 11th Appeals Court refused to hear the case and Terri slips closer to death while the media continues to spew misinformation and outright lies about her condition in order to stifle the uproar which were to occur if the public knew the facts of the case.

Pia de Solenni over at National Review Online has some thoughts and here are some snips:

The mainstream media continues to use such phrases as “life support,” “coma,” “dying,” and “persistent vegetative state.” Let’s get something clear: Terri was not on life support. She breathes on her own and her brain can still keep her organs functioning. Terri wasn’t dying any more than the rest of us until her feeding and hydration tube was pulled on Friday. At that point, she started to die, just like you and I would if we were denied food and water for an extended period of time. Even those who willingly fast generally take water. But Terri isn’t even allowed ice chips for her cracking lips. And no mention has been made of pain relief for the agony that accompanies death by dehydration and starvation.

Nor is Terri in a coma. It’s not even clear that she’s in a persistent vegetative state, since she’s never had the benefit of diagnostic exams such as an MRI or PET. The video and audio tapes of her indicate some awareness — an awareness reminiscent of a newborn infant who can’t yet clearly see, comprehend, or speak. Disability or lack of ability are not grounds for starvation.

It might seem a far reach to involve the federal government, but the fact remains that it’s not even Michael Schiavo who has sentenced Terri to death — although he has clearly indicated that his desire is such. No, in Terri’s case, it’s the courts that have sentenced her to die. In each decision, a judge has set a time and date for her to stop receiving food and water.

Yet Terri is no criminal, and she’s not brain dead. She isn’t even in a coma. She suffers from a trauma-induced disability which has left her disabled. While the courts and the pundits seem willing to be led by Michael Schiavo and his attorney George Felos, Terri’s story clearly resonates with Americans who hear the details, including many of our politicians and our congressional leadership. Unfortunately, it may be too late for Terri as she faces another day without food and water — a death by starvation that Michael calls a “natural” death.

Read it all.

ABC Conducts Push Poll For Euthanasia

Agenda? What agenda?!? Captain's Quarters must be smoking crack when they accuse ABC of asking bogus questions in order to get the results they want:

That amounts to a stunning level of support for Michael Schiavo, if the data is to be believed. However, a look at the questionnaire shows that ABC News completely misrepresented Terri's medical condition, which undoubtedly impacted the responses given. Question 2, which asks the central question, claims that Terri is on life support:

2. Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday.

What’s your opinion on this case - do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo’s feeding tube? Do you support/oppose it strongly or somewhat?

Terri has never been on life support. The only medical treatment Terri received for the past five years has been food and water through a feeding tube, which is nothing at all like artificial life support. Artificial life support consists of ventilation for people unable to breathe on their own. The question sets up a strawman argument that so completely contradicts reality that the entire poll must be considered invalid.

Either ABC is completely incompetent in conducting research, or they have attempted to fool their viewers and readership with false polling that essentially lies about the case in question. Since when does ABC conduct push polling for euthanasia?

Ask people bogus questions; get the responses you want; convince the ignorant that EVERYONE believes the Big Lie; stack the bodies like cordwood.

Any questions?

Strike Two! Third Strike Coming?

The Federal Appeals Court has rejected stepping into the Schiavo case by a 2-1 vote and now Terri's parents are petitioning the Supreme Court. Good luck with that, folks. The Starver has the upper hand legally and is going to exploit that advantage to get away with murder and we're all going to have to sit and watch it happen.


In a news story, a demonstrator is mentioned holding a sign reading "HONOR HER WISHES".

If she'd made her wishes known to someone other than THE GUY WHO BENEFITS MOST FROM HER DEATH than there'd be no controversy and I'd be writing about Star Wars or something else less depressing.

But as long as we're being forced to accept the uncorraborated word of a weasel who may have precipitated her condition in the first place - read: he may've tried to kill her 15 years ago and needs her dead to prevent her squealing on him - I don't think sitting silently is an acceptable option.

Another ironic kink in the hypocrisy of the Left is that they're always preaching (in their God-free manner) about how the State needs to swoop down and salve every ill of society and now that government IS sticking their nose into people's lives, they're suddenly acting like they're libertarians.

Amazing what they'll say and do when they want the blood of innocents, isn't it?

Lookee here - ANOTHER Mysterious Memo!

A phrase I frequently use (ganked from George Will) to describe people who aren't grasping concepts very well is "their learning curve isn't curving". The latest example of the MSM tripping all over themselves (and reality) in their jihad against Republicans is the widespread coverage of an alleged "talking points memo" which supposedly reveals the cynical politics at work with regards to the slow-motion murder of Terri Schiavo.

Where they aren't curving is in failing to take the lessons of Dan Rather et al and not properly verifying the document and stonewalling and demanding that we simply take their word for it - just like when The Starver says Terry told him she wanted to be killed in as slow and painful a manner possible - when the Blogosphere started tearing it apart for obvious problems.

First off is Power Line's coverage which has comments from current staffers who shred the authenticity of the memos for their inaccurate language (sound familiar?) and how the WaPo's author is using the "trust me" defense. They sum up with:

The memo itself contains no clue as to its origins. That in itself is suspicious; the memo's contents are hardly appropriate for an anonymous communication. The fact that the memo appeared in Senators' offices (or, for that matter, at ABC News) proves nothing, as anyone, including a Democratic dirty trickster, could have distributed it. Mike Allen of the Washington Post says he knows something he can't tell us, but his only argument for why the memo is authentic--some Senators had it--is silly. Further, the content of the memo is highly suspicious. Why would anyone mix political strategy points--the ones the Democrats want to talk about--with talking points for Senatorial argument? A competent staffer preparing a talking points memo wouldn't do that, but a Democratic dirty trickster would.

Does this prove the memo is a fraud? Not at all. It is possible that somewhere in the House or Senate there is a Republican staffer dumb enough to have produced and circulated it. The question, though, is: what is the evidence that the memo is genuine? At this point, there is none. And, with all due respect to Mike Allen, "trust me" is no longer adequate proof.

After reading all of that, go to Fishkite and read their timeline which lays out the sequence of events and the suspicions that are being raised.

Short form: It's looking like another fake that the MSM is more than willing to spread to damage the GOP and all non-liberals for daring to meddle in their spread of their Culture of Death which is taking a giant step with the murder of Terri Schiavo.

The Slow-Motion Murder of Terri Schiavo: Day Six

If you've heard that being dehydrated to death is a "gentle death" please go here and see what someone who survived a PVS diagnosis has to say about it. I see that the "end of life" expert I heard on the CBS Radio news yesterday morning was probably the doctor covered in the same article. No agenda there, right?


I'd also like to include this Andy McCarthy post from The Corner which really sums it up succinctly:

AS WE PASS 100 HOURS OF STARVATION AND DEHYDRATION it is worth remembering that the excruciating slowness of the execution here, the incremental-ness of death, is designed by its champions to inure us to it. After the first hour, the second passes with far less fanfare, and the third less still. I've been following this closely, and I needed to remind myself today how many hours Terri Schiavo has actually been without sustenance by counting the days since Friday afternoon and multiplying by 24. How much more easily the time passes, and the world around us changes, for those following only fleetingly, or not at all.

Why should we think this is intentional? Consider, say, a month ago, before Terri's plight took center stage, if you had asked someone in the abstract: "How would you feel about starving and dehydrating a defenseless, brain-damaged woman?" The answer is easy to imagine: "Outrageous, atrocious -- something that wouldn't be done to an animal and couldn't be done to the worst convicted murderer."

But then it actually happens ... slowly. You're powerless to stop it, and ... you find your life goes on.
There are kids and jobs and triumphs and tragedies and everyday just-getting-by. An atrocity becomes yet another awful thing going on in the world. After a day, or maybe two, of initial flabbergast, we're talking again about social security reform, China, North Korea, Hezbollah, etc. A woman's snail-like, gradual torture goes from savagery to just one of those sad facts of life. As is the case with other depravities once believed unthinkable, it coarsens us. We slowly, and however reluctantly, accept it. We accept it. The New York Times no doubt soon "progresses" from something like "terminating life by starvation," to "the dignity of death by starvation," to "the medical procedure that opponents refer to as starvation." And so the culture of life slides a little more. The culture of death gains a firmer foothold.

Of course, the physical needs of the body are not limited to food and water. There is also air. But no judge, even in Florida, would ever have had the nerve in Terri's case to permit "the medical procedure that opponents refer to as asphyxiation." Too crude. Too quick. Too obviously murder of a vulnerable innocent. Brazen, instant savagery might wake us from our slumber. For the culture of death, better that we sleep.

The Left has been trying (and succeeding, despite the whistling past the graveyard of the Right would lead you to believe) to destroy so many of society's tenets, but this is the one they cherish most: To convince people that the best thing for the inconvenient among us is to simply kill them and then tell ourselves the victims are better off for it.

Think about it. How many have been killed and rationalized away this way?

How many more before we realize it's too late?

What Steroids and Schiavo Have in Common... the title of a piece by Ryan Sager at Tech Central Station which does a better job of summing up the problems with the Stupid Party's recent forays into sticking government's snout into people's business.

I've always pointed out that the Left doesn't have a problem with anything they attack the Right for on honest grounds. They're just angry that they are the ones exploiting the system to their own benefit. That's why they refuse to depower government and promote indepedence for real, like the pretend they care to, they want the reins available for their return to the throne.

Anyhoo, here's a good sum up of the pitfalls of activism by phony conservatives:

In coming years, political historians might look back and try to pinpoint the day or week or month that the Republican Party shed the last vestiges of its small-government philosophy. If and when they do, the week just past should make the short list. For it was in this last week that the Republican-controlled Congress made it clear that it sees no area of American life -- none too trivial and none too intimate -- that the federal government should not permeate with its power.

It can all be summed up in two words: steroids and Schiavo.

If there is an issue less deserving of Congressional attention than whether a few overpaid, bat-wielding jocks might have injected themselves with substances to help them wield their bats better, then it has yet to be discovered by the House's Government Reform Committee, which held last week's hearings.

Still, such concerns didn't deter supposed small-government conservative Sen. John McCain from suggesting that "we ought to seriously consider … a law that says all professional sports have a minimum level of performance-enhancing drug testing."

When you're a lawmaker, apparently, every problem seems to cry out for a law.

But if Congress' dealings with the trivial are appalling, they are nothing compared to its exploitation of the tragic.

There, we have the sad case of Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman in a "permanent vegetative state" whose feeding tube had been removed at her husband's urging -- and based on a court's findings regarding her wishes on the matter only to have Congress and President Bush intervene ostensibly on her behalf.

Putting aside the tangled facts of the case for the moment -- which include some bitter family history and selective science on both sides -- the driving question here should be: Does Congress have a role?

And when it comes to a family dispute over a painful medical decision, one which at least 19 judges in six courts have already adjudicated, the answer must be a resounding "no."

The forums for matters such as the Schiavo case are state courts, upholding state laws. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives -- who want Roe v. Wade overturned and the issue of abortion moved back to state legislatures and courts -- should understand this better than any other group of Americans.

Conservatives, of course, recognize their hypocrisy. And they're offering up weak rationalizations, like this one from The Wall Street Journal in an editorial Monday: "We'd have more sympathy for this argument if the same liberals who are complaining about the possibility of the federal courts reviewing Mrs. Schiavo's case felt as strongly about restraining the federal judiciary when it comes to abortion, homosexuality, and other social issues they don't want to trust to local communities."

In other words: Our opponents are hypocrites, so we can be, too.

The Journal goes on to argue, rather implausibly, that the federal government has a legitimate role in the Schiavo case because she has been issued a "death sentence," warranting federal review. Alternately, the paper argues, Schiavo may have been deprived of her "due process" rights.

This is all nonsense.

The state is not ordering the killing of Terri Schiavo. Her husband is requesting she be allowed to die, based on her wishes. It is not up to Congress, or the American public, to decide whether they approve of Terri Schiavo's decision.

He trips up at the end there on two points:

1. The State may not be ordering this hit, but they're allowing it to occur.

B. "Her wishes"? Says WHO?!? Terri or the weasel who hopes to profit from her death?!?

THAT is the question that screams out for an answer: Are we going to let men have the unfettered right to murder their women on their say-so alone?!?!

And in a cave somewhere, a Taliban mullah has got to be wondering why he got bombed for advocating what the Left is supporting here now.

The Trustfunder Left

Not to be confused with "Trustafarians" - the trust fund kids who can follow their fave hippie bands around instead of worrying about supporting themselves - Michael Barone has spotted a group of Lefties who further put the lie to the Big Lie of the Left which is that non-liberals are evil, greedy trust fund weasels themselves.

Who are the trustfunders? People with enough money not to have to work for a living, or not to have to work very hard. People who can live more or less wherever they want. The "nomadic affluent," as demographic analyst Joel Kotkin calls them.

These people tend to be very liberal politically. Aware that they have done nothing to earn their money, they feel a certain sense of guilt. At the elite private or public high schools they attend, and even more at their colleges and universities, they are propagandized about the evils of capitalism and globalization, and the virtues of environmentalism and pacifism. Patriotism is equated with Hiterlism.

Their loyalties, as Samuel Huntington explains in "Who Are We?," are not national, but transnational -- they are citizens of the world with contempt for those who feel chills up their spines when they hear "The Star Spangled Banner." They are taught to have contempt for the economic contribution they make to their country as investors and to feel guilty if they make no other contribution. Their penance is that they must vote left.

By all means, READ IT ALL and keep it in mind when the wealthy elites of the Left try to sell you the chains of your own slavery under the guise of "soaking the rich". (Hint: They've got so much money, they'll never be poor.)

(Hat tip: Instapundit)

Claus von Bulow: 2005 Edition?

I was wondering who Michael "The Starver" Schiavo reminded me of and I've figured it out: Claus von Bulow!

I wonder how many liberals supported him then like they support The Starver today.

The "F"-word Taken Down By Dilbert!

One of the favorite epithets hurled by the tolerant and kind members of the Left is "fascist". You get that a lot since everyone knows you can't use "Nazi" anymore without getting a red card for violating Godwin's Law.

In their attempt to silence all dissent against their totalitarian schemes, they call anyone who disagrees with them a fascist despite the fact that the word doesn't mean anything like what they act like it does. Whenever I mention that I'm a small-L libertarian, they automatically retort with "No, you aren't! You're a fascist!" as if calling for much less government is the same as desiring centrally-planned government. Huh? Whut?!?

Well, Scott Adams must've felt my pain for Dogbert perfectly sums up precisely the "words mean what suits us" mentality of the Left:


Where is ""?

Considering the large (paying?) audience potential for a live death, where's the streaming webcam in which people can look in and watch the dignified starvation ordeal of Terri Schiavo?

What's that? That would be in bad taste? Since when has that stopped anything?!? If 30 million people are willing to watch "American Idol", where's the herd who want to watch a man have his wife murdered in slow-motion with the fervent support of Blue Staters?

There's got to be more audience than Air America draws. MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!

Tuesday, March 22, 2005

The Slow-Motion Murder of Terri Schiavo: Day Five

My morning drives of this week have been accompanied by the surreal sounds of roles being reversed and hypocrisy going unchallenged.

First off, Monday morning brought news of the overnight passage and signing into law of a bill that would force Terri's case to be looked at by the Federal courts. What was most striking were the soundbites of Democratic Congresspeople loudly intoning that their constituents didn't "send me to Washington to interfere in their personal lives and decisions" and how the government had no right to step into this case.


Since WHEN has a liberal ever shied away from imposing the government into our lives? Why are they suddenly so worried that government has become too meddlesome in our affairs?

Could it be because it's more important that this woman be killed rather than let a sliver of light appear in their "death-before-life" agenda?

Well, duh. The Left has always been in favor of tyranny, sexism, racism, slavery and totalitarianism in which THEY are in charge of lording over us who gets what. It's ironic that a common smear against non-liberals - you know, those "Jesusland" troglodytes - is to compare them to the Taliban when it's the Left who is four-square behind this husband's right to slaughter his wife mercilessly as he would a pet he's grown tired of.

Except a pet would be entitled to a more sensible demise.

Today's morning commute brought an "end of life expert" who spoke sooth about how Terri's death would be painless because, well, she's too damaged to suffer pain like higher life forms (like liberals) do. Nice. Possibly a lie, but whatever promulgates the myth that Terri won't be suffering, so don't lose sleep over her tortuous demise, is the rule of the day.

As the rabid comments on the previous post show, the issue isn't whether Terri is going to suffer and whether her rat-bastard husband holds title to her metaphysical pink slip, it's the defeat of the "culture of life" and by extension non-liberals, that fuels the irrational haters of the Left. They don't have a problem with government robbing us through taxation, brainwashing our children in government-run schools, restricting personal liberties across the board, etc. etc. etc. as long as it's THEIR SIDE with the whip hand. The moment Jesusland politicians open their mouths, it's screaming time again.

Now, speaking for myself, I'm not too crazy about all these last minute showboating maneuvers by the Republicans as they cross sides into the "government must act" area, thus chucking what little credibility they had as a smaller-government party out the window.


...while I think they're probably out of bounds, they're at least making a mistake on the side of protecting the helpless. Another smear of the Left is that Red Staters don't give a sh*t about a fetus once it escapes the womb, yet when they try to protect someone who's on the edge of death, the hypocrites switch up without a care for consistency and attack again and again. So, what's new?

My stance on this all along has been in the form of rhetorical questions that no one seems to want to answer:

1. Why is Michael Schiavo so hell bent to see his wife dead? He's got a new girlfriend and kids, but he won't divorce his invalid wife and has aggressively prevented her from receiving therapy, when Terri's family are more than willing to step up to the plate.

B. Why are we being told that a slow torturous death from starvation and dehydration is humane? I've suggested to people that we simply put a gun to her head and paint the hospice's walls with her damaged brain or snuff her with a pillow or a lethal injection like we do with convicts and animals and they look at me like I'm the crazy one. If dead is dead, what's the hold-up?

3. When the Left pays lip service to women's rights and choice, why are they so willing to let ONE MAN have the say-so over her life or death? I'm sure Taliban honchos watching CNNi are scratching their heads over this twist.

This case is a mess and the truism about hard cases making bad law is on full display, but remove all the agendas and bickering and posturing and partisan crap and we're left with a simple question to consider: Is life important enough to go to extremes to protect? If so, just how extreme are we going to get?

The Left is scared that to save Terri would mean yielding from their unholy Sacrament of Abortion and that if we're going to protect this veg, then it's a short step to shooting abortionists next and frankly, that leap worries me as well. While I'm no fan of abortion and believe it's primarily used as de facto "post-conceptual birth control", I believe that if God has something to say about it, he'll handle it in his own manner and all those whackos running around as self-appointed Guardians of Life who MURDER these doctors need to drop dead NOW! It's not YOUR decision, either!

While it's hard to rationalize interference, it's harder to accept why simply pointing out the ramifications of our choices must be squelched by those who exercise their free speech rights by shrieking insane slurs in my comments section - a privilege, BTW, not a right - and unless they're too offensive to remain, I let them stand in testament to the unreasoning hatred that consumes them. Why should I say it when they can prove it?

To conclude, here are a couple of relevant columns from the torrent that are sweeping the Web about this issue. First up, here's Thomas Sowell's "Cruel and Unusual" which says in part:

If the tragic case of Terri Schiavo shows nothing else, it shows how easily "the right to die" can become the right to kill. It is hard to believe that anyone, regardless of their position on euthanasia, would have chosen the agony of starvation and dehydration as the way to end someone's life.

A New York Times headline on March 20th tried to assure us: "Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death" but you can find experts to say anything. In a December 2, 2002 story in the same New York Times, people starving in India were reported as dying, "often clutching pained stomachs."

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."

The fervor of those who want to save Terri Schiavo's life is understandable and should be respected, even by those who disagree. What is harder to understand is the fervor and even venom of those liberals who have gone ballistic -- ostensibly over state's rights, over the Constitutional separation of powers, and even over the sanctity of family decisions.

These are not things that liberals have any track record of caring about. Is what really bothers them the idea of the sanctity of life and what that implies for their abortion issue? Or do they hate any challenge to the supremacy of judges -- on which the whole liberal agenda depends -- a supremacy that the Constitution never gave the judiciary?

If nothing else comes out of all this, there needs to be a national discussion of some humane way to end life in those cases when it has to be ended -- and this may not be one of those cases.

And here is Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard's argument in favor of intervention which echo my questions above:

* Terri Schiavo is brain damaged but not brain dead. She is not on life support. She breathes on her own. She occasionally laughs. She reacts to stimuli. She responds at times to her parents. She is not dying, though she needs a feeding tube. A doctor diagnosed her as being in a "permanent vegetative state" but other doctors have disputed that view. Indeed there are legitimate questions about her initial diagnosis.

* Schiavo's parents have offered to take full responsibility for her care, relieving her husband of any obligations whatsoever. They are willing to pay the expenses of her hospitalization and any rehabilitation program.

* Senate majority leader Bill Frist, himself a doctor, has talked to a neurologist who examined Schiavo. The neurologist told him that with proper care of a type she hasn't received there is a good chance that Schiavo's condition will improve markedly.

As usual, go read all of the pieces and if the howlers must spew their anti-Christian hatred all over the comments section accusing me of being a "Jesus freak" - odd considering I'm dreading the 1st of my compulsory annual trips to Church this Sunday - kindly include your response to this question:

Why shouldn't we just shoot Terri Schiavo like a wounded animal instead of a slow, torturous, painful, miserable death at the wishes of her scumbag guardian? (He doesn't warrant the title of "husband" if you think of it.)

Friday, March 18, 2005

Death Penality Opponents For Death?!?!?

Q: What is the primary argument anti-death penalty advocates use?

A: That it is wrong for the State to kill a criminal for crimes they've committed because they MIGHT be the victims of a wrongful conviction - the cops framed them; society's racist; poor toilet training and being raised a bottle baby; whatever - and if the conviction is in error, the punishment is irreversable.

Sound about right?

Then why are these same people sitting silently by while Terri Schiavo is going to be put to death based on the word of her bastard husband?!?!? He's had a relationship with another woman and spawned a couple of kids and has crusaded for the death of his wife (I guess he's against divorce) because HE SAYS that she told him that she didn't want to be kept alive via extraordinary means.

Based on the word of ONE MAN who has an interest in seeing his wife done away with, a court has ordered that this woman be put to a slow and torturous death.

Where are those anti-death penalty people now? Hmmm?

The Slow-Motion Murder of Terri Schiavo: Day One

So, they've pulled her feeding tube and started the circus of her murder in slow-motion. People are already choosing up sides and I've already gotten into an argument with the girlfriend as she believes that, well, that it's better to be dead than incapacitated and that we should assume that she wants to be dead. Debating about running a personal ad. Stay tuned...

Back on topic: Listening to Sean Hannity's show, he had a woman (didn't catch her name) who had had a stroke, was in a coma on a feeding tube and WAS AWARE OF EVERY MOMENT OF HER ORDEAL!!! Her husband, unlike Terri's, fought the hospital to force them to treat her and they regarded him as a nutty Jesus freak.

Well, she certainly sounded chipper and well, which is a definite benefit of not being married to cowardly murderer. Another lucky woman is Sarah Scantlin, who spent TWENTY YEARS in a vegatative state after being hit by a car in 1984 who is now speaking and regained her memory. Good thing she wasn't married to this asstackler.

Hannity also played a clip of Mr. Schiavo's lawyer howling that Hillary Clinton and other Dems were aborgating their duty by not standing up for the murder of Terri. Amazing! He actually used the phrase "let Terri in peace" which certainly sounds soothing to fools like my (soon to be ex?) girlfriend except according to the which lists and explains the treatment plan for Terri's death, including the applications of lotions, creams and salves to mask the dehydrating effects on her skin.

Read it all, but here's the punchline:

I would observe, in conclusion, that most of the "treatments" described in this Exit Protocol are in fact not directed at easing the patient's true condition, but in masking the symptoms of dying by starvation and dehydration. These treatments are designed to create the appearance of a peaceful "slipping away", when nothing of the sort is happening. The medications hide the fact that the patient undergoes a lengthy and painful deterioration, in which his/her body wastes away cruelly. Remember this the next time you hear or read someone say that Terri should be "allowed" to die.

This is a Rubicon for our society.

"If Terri Schiavo is killed, Republicans will pay a political price."

So says Peggy Noonan in her column today.

There is a passionate, highly motivated and sincere group of voters and activists who care deeply about whether Terri Schiavo is allowed to live. Their reasoning, ultimately, is this: Be on the side of life. They remind me of what Winston Churchill said once when he became home secretary in charge of England's prisons. He was seated at dinner with a jabbery lady who said that if she were ever given a life sentence she'd rather die than serve it. He reared back. No, he said, always choose life! "Death's the only thing you can't get out of!"

Just so. Life is full of surprise and lightning-like lurches. The person in a coma today wakes up tomorrow and says, "Is that you, mom?" Life is unknowable. Always give it a chance to shake your soul and upend reality.

The supporters of Terri Schiavo's right to continue living have fought for her heroically, through the courts and through the legislatures. They're still fighting. They really mean it. And they have memories.

On the other side of this debate, one would assume there is an equally well organized and passionate group of organizations deeply committed to removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube. But that's not true. There's just about no one on the other side. Or rather there is one person, a disaffected husband who insists Terri once told him she didn't want to be kept alive by extraordinary measures.

He has fought the battle to kill her with a determination that at this point seems not single-minded or passionate but strange. His former wife's parents and family are eager to care for her and do care for her, every day. He doesn't have to do a thing. His wife is not kept alive by extraordinary measures--she breathes on her own, is not on a respirator. All she needs to continue existing--and to continue being alive so that life can produce whatever miracle it may produce--is a feeding tube.

It doesn't seem a lot.

So politically this is a struggle between many serious people who really mean it and one, just one, strange-o. And the few bearded and depressed-looking academics he's drawn to his side.

It is not at all in the political interests of senators and congressmen to earn the wrath of the pro-Schiavo group and the gratitude of the anti-Schiavo husband, by doing nothing.

Go read the whole damn thing RIGHT NOW!!! I'll wait...

I heard on the news today that after they yank the feeding tube, she may take a week or two to die of malnutrition and dehydration.

Question: Would you subject a DOG to this sort of excruciating death? If not, why is it OK to do it to this woman? A lot of people are willing to care for her and this bastard husband is doing everything to KILL HER!!!! WHY?!?!?!?!? Why isn't he in a cell with Scott Peterson when they're doing the same thing - killing their wives?!?!?

Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Someone buy me this t-shirt!

It's cheap and it's a fine token of appreciation for the great blogging satisfaction I provide!

For the Geek with too much money!

When you've got a home theatre designed to look like the Death Star by the designer of the Star Wars prequels with a full-sized Han Solo in carbonite wall-hanging, you're obviously more a dork than I, Gunga-Wan Dinobi.

Monday, March 14, 2005

"Well...DUH!" News of the Day.

Study Shows U.S. Election Coverage Harder on Bush. Really?

U.S. media coverage of last year's election was three times more likely to be negative toward President Bush than Democratic challenger John Kerry, according to a study released Monday.

The annual report by a press watchdog that is affiliated with Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism said that 36 percent of stories about Bush were negative compared to 12 percent about Kerry, a Massachusetts senator.

Only 20 percent were positive toward Bush compared to 30 percent of stories about Kerry that were positive, according to the report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

When I had decided I could no longer support the Stupid Party, I still noticed the raw deal they were getting in the press. It was the same in 1992 when I'd given up on Bush 41 and still became aware of the massive press bias in favor of Clinton. When you feel sorry for the guys you aren't even going to vote for, that's a good sign that a unfair shafting is taking place.

Sure, it's old news, but when the Washington Post managing editor Philip Bennett is giving interviews to China's People's Daily that "I don't think US should be the leader of the world", it's good to keep in mind that while the MSM keeps lying to us about their biases and hysterically trying to convince us that Team Dubya is censoring them blah-blah-woof-woof, their anti-American hatred is simmering beneath the surface.

I wonder how that Chinese reporter would do if he attempted to speak out against the Chinese dictatorship in the way Bennett slashes at his government? Doesn't the fact that Bennett doesn't really have to worry about ending up in a prison labor camp put the lie to the MSM's FUD campaign.