In any court proceeding, there's usually a winner and a loser. Not in this case, though. Here, everyone loses.
Her husband has been nationally villified by people who don't even know him. His parents have lost their daughter, but not before presenting a national picture of themselves that wavered between pathos and pathetic, depending upon one's point of view. Her life was cut short. And whereas anyone who remembers Karen Quinlan has forever etched in their minds the smiling picture taken as a school portrait, Terri Schiavo leaves behind a lasting image of a bedridden woman with glassy eyes who is either looking hopefully at her parents or--as her liquified brain would suggest--wasn't looking at anything. Politicians attempted to make some quick hay and capital by going national over something that should have remained personal, with plenty of shame available to cover both GOP and Dem behavior.
Everyone loses.
This should never happen again.
But it will.
PAD
Well said, Peter. I don't always agree with the opinions put out on the site, but in this case you put the feelings of countless millions across better than I know I could have.
At least no one's producing t-shirts reading "The courts ordered my daughter dead and all I got for it was this lousy t-shirt." Yet. Give it a week.
On the subject of the attempts at making political hay, I found this little tidbit in a column by Andrew Sullivan at this link:
"That is how Bill Bennett, a leading conservative activist, could write last Thursday in the conservative National Review, that Jeb Bush, the Florida governor, should simply overrule the courts, break the law and send armed guards
to insert the feeding tube by force."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-1543032,00.html
and I really don't care for all that it suggests.
My apologies. I left out that it was thanks to Mark Evanier that I ran across that column.
It might sound callous to say that I'm glad she finally died, but as most rational people would agree, it's certainly for the best. It's time to move on. She's in a better place, if you believe in such things. It's time for the families to start the grieving process (and probably the lawsuits) and for the government to start minding its own business (which, as we all know, it won't).
Tom DeLay said earlier, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today."
As much as we'd like all this to be over, as long as opportunistic politicians think they can score points, we'll unfortunately be hearing about Terri for many months to come.
"Tom DeLay said earlier, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today."
As much as we'd like all this to be over, as long as opportunistic politicians think they can score points, we'll unfortunately be hearing about Terri for many months to come."
Especially if Tom DeLay and his bully boys have anything to say about it. Can you believe he wants to impeach the Federal judges who didn't fall into lockstep with Congress and instead followed the law in regards to Schiavo? What a chilling effect. Bush should make it a moral imperative to overrule DeLay's comments immediately. The moment you start punishing judges just because you don't like their opinions, that's pretty much it for checks and balances.
PAD
Sorry, but it isn't over.
First begin the civil suits. Definitely a Wrongful Death suit against Schiavo, and possibly ones against the State of Florida and Jeb Bush for malfeasance of duty. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if, in the future, the Schindlers sue a couple of their advisors, not to mention the inevitable suits against whichever insiders write books.
Plus, I have the terrible feeling that Michael Schiavo will be gunned down a year hence by some crazed ex-Operation Rescue member, which act Randall Terry will call "inappropriate" and "deplorable," but will say it is just a case of Schiavo "reaping what he sowed," all the while disavowing his own complicity and incitements.
After all, it's happened before ...
The moment you start punishing judges just because you don't like their opinions, that's pretty much it for checks and balances.
That's pretty much the point, isn't it? Checks and balances are only getting in the way of their agenda. I'm sure Bush and those congressional Republicans understand what they're doing, not just with the threats, but also with public comments that aim to undermine the public's respect for and valuation of an independent judiciary. Makes it easier to brush those pesky judges aside once you've convinced the public they're all wackos standing in the way of the good of American society.
As for Michael Schiavo...can't say I'm entirely sympathetic. He's brought some of the bad image on himself, with actions like barring the family from Terri's final moments.
As for Michael Schiavo...can't say I'm entirely sympathetic. He's brought some of the bad image on himself, with actions like barring the family from Terri's final moments.
Didn't that come AFTER some of the Schindler family got into a scuffle with the security people? How is that Mr. Schiavo's fault?
How could it remain a "family" matter when the family DISAGREED?
How could it remain a "personal" matter when the family brought it to court?
Since when is life and death ONLY a "personal" matter?
And how come Michael Schiavo wanted the rights of a husband but seemed to have trouble handling the responsibility of that whole wedding vow deal of forsaking all others? and how come he didn't seem to recall Terri's wishes until AFTER he got the money from the lawsuit?
Find out the answers to the above questions and more . . . in the transcripts of the half dozen trials over the past FIFTEEN YEARS where those questions were--or could have been--raised and answered.
And when DON'T politicians (as well the press and pundits) on all sides make hay out of a national issue? and when AREN'T there a mix of grand-standers and true-believers in an issue?
"It's a 'personal'/'family' matter."
Had Terri been someone's pet or an "endangered" animal and you wanted to remove hydration and nutrition from it to "allow" it to die, see how fast the politics switch. As fast as when politicians will switch on a dime when debating drugs and guns and whether the mere presence of them should be banned or just harmful uses of them.
"Err on the side of life."
Unless you've been sentence to death on flimsy evidence and shoddy lacksadaisacal lawyering one's defense attorney, or one starting a war--or is it just err on the side of your own country's life? Or it was someone NOT named "Terri Schiavo" who was on feeding tube but too bad for you, Congress explicitly stated the law would not have any precedence for other cases.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. "Politics. Bah, humbug."
"Everyone loses." I was thinking the exact same thing earlier.
But where DeLay is concerned... there are so many ways in which this man's opinion is invalid and hypocritical. He's harping on the "activist judiciary". Arrogant? If the courts had actively interjected themselves into the matter and forced the decision, *that* would be arrogance. No, if anything, the courts were consistent, at every level, even when their decisions were close. Nevermind the fact that he's throwing a smoke screen and trying to deflect the growing scrutiny of his own misdeeds. Nevermind the fact that he and his own family chose to allow his own father, who was in the same predicament as Terri Schiavo following an accident, to die with dignity.
It's unfortunate that even after she's finally allowed to pass on, Terri Schiavo will still be used as a political ping pong ball by these "pro life" thugs.
Wildcat
There's a lot more to fidelity than where you put your penis.
As a non-American I feel sort of on dodgy ground here, but apparently that Mr DeLay has been going on about "out of control judges".
Now, like I said, I'm not an American, I'm not from a country where the consititution is written down even, but I sort of thought that the US Constitution was quite keen on Judges not being controlled. Whole great bits about separation of powers, checks and balances and so on.
If I've not just got the wrong end of the stick, could someone point this out to Tom? I understand he's some kind of law maker himself. He really shouldn't have to have ignorant Brits point out the central basis of his legal system.
Get your living will put together. And if you have one, make sure it's current. That's all that needs to be said because you sure as hell don't want the government making the decision.
Dave Golbitz: It might sound callous to say that I'm glad she finally died, but as most rational people would agree, it's certainly for the best.
Especially, since she was only alive from a biological standpoint. She breatha and ate... and then not entirely on her own. Rehabilitation wasn't really a possiblity. Her brain was severely damaged and brain cell's don't grow back. She'd essentialy already been dead for 15 years.
Liquidlin: There's a lot more to fidelity than where you put your penis.
Sex is a natural biological and psychological drive. So... let me get this straight. Sex with an aware human being that you're not married to... that's bad. Sex with a vegetable that you are married to.. that would be okay? That's just creepy.
This is one of those times when I feel like I should say something momentous, but can't find the words. So I'll simply extend my sympathies to all of Terri's loved ones. The pavement on the road to Hell notwithstanding, they did what they did out of love.
As for Terri, I'm unsure as to the details of the afterlife, but I hope that wherever she is, she's at peace. And I'm sure that, if one or both of the parties who decided her fate here on Earth did wrong in her eyes, she's forgiven them. Let that be the end of it.
Now, like I said, I'm not an American, I'm not from a country where the consititution is written down even, but I sort of thought that the US Constitution was quite keen on Judges not being controlled. Whole great bits about separation of powers, checks and balances and so on.
You have it right. The US Constitution requires that judges be independent precisely to keep them from bowing to external political pressure so that they can apply the law in a fair and impartial manner. But, DeLay doesn't care about checks and balances. This all about pushing through their agenda. It was never at all about what Terri Shiavo may or may not have wanted. As I said before, there is no doubt that in the coming week, we will see more calls for the "nuclear option" to get rid of the filibuster so that Bush can push through all the "right thinking" judges.
As for Ken from Chicago: Repeating the same tired vilifications against Michael Shiavo serves no good anymore. The Schindlers actually encouraged him to date other women before they started to disagree about Terri's condition. There is virtually none of that settlement money left, so what would have been the point of trying to inherit it? I realize that your mind is so closed to possibility that he actually did do what he believed Terri would have wanted that you'll never give a serious thought to those questions, but maybe you should try actually reviewing some of the facts instead of the empty rhetoric.
"and I really don't care for all that it suggests."
It suggest that Bill Bennet made a dtupid suggestion and Jeb Bush ignored it. No big.
. She's in a better place, if you believe in such things.
Hell, she's in a better place if you don't believe in such things! If I'm ever in that position you all have my permission to come put me out of my misery. (Oh, hey now, what's with the big smiles?)
. The moment you start punishing judges just because you don't like their opinions, that's pretty much it for checks and balances.
Agreed. (Along with the whole opening post. Well said, PAD.)
There's a lot more to fidelity than where you put your penis.
Fellas, do NOT try this line at home.
Didn't that come AFTER some of the Schindler family got into a scuffle with the security people?
Not what I read.
Didn't that come AFTER some of the Schindler family got into a scuffle with the security people?
Not what I read.
Then you didn't read enough.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050401/ap_on_re_us/schiavo_6
Except:
"Felos confirmed that no one from Terri Schiavo's side of the family was with her when she died, but disputed the Schindlers' account of why that was. Schiavo's siblings had been asked to leave the room so that the hospice staff could examine her, and Bobby Schindler started arguing with a law enforcement official so Michael Schiavo had him kept out, Felos said."
There's a lot more to fidelity than where you put your penis.
Fellas, do NOT try this line at home.
LOL. Yeah, I don't see my wife buying that line either.
Well if this case proved one thing it proved the gullibility of a large cross section of the american public. I heard several people that not only believed she was fully consciene but was being restrained so she would not get up and walk out of her room or feed herself.
Tom DeLay what a hypocrit, he pulls the plug on his own father and then causes tons of grief to another family as he tries to use them to dodge his own malfesance.
And for those who are having fits over the fact that Schiavo moved on with his life and started a family with another woman... Maybe you should actually go and read the multiple trial transcripts where Schindler admits to encouraging Michael to find a girlfriend and move on. This was of course before the greed set in and the families split but Schindler didn't seem to have a problem with it and encouraged it prior to it becoming an opportunity for his own stupidity.
As for we treat our animals better, what a joke. I hope to never hear that stupidity again but I'm sure I won't be so lucky. No we sure do treat our animals better, we break their necks, put them in gas chambers, shoot them in the head or stick them with needles full of neural toxins. Of course our animals don't starve because we kill them long before that oppotunity arises.
The scary part is living wills aren't even good enough for these crackpots. Already right to lifers are trying to introduce laws that override an individuals right to choose who to end. We're in for a fight.
Some changes will come from this case.
First, *everyone* who doesn't want to be in a persistent vegitative state is going to fill out and update their living will. Heck, now these are available from download at many news sites.
Second, "culture of life" will replace "family values" as the Republican catchphrase. (Lack of health coverage and support for capital punishment will *not* be mentioned anywhere near this phrase.)
Third, expect Bush to be a greater "divider, not a uniter." In this case, he's shown a complete lack of respect for the division between the judiciary and executive branches of government -- and it's continuing. He's now discussing ways to get around opposition to his plans, and that will be vehemently supported by those who want Bush's agenda to run rampant over all objections, and opposed by those who want checks and balances to remain.
Long days ahead...
Felos confirmed that no one from Terri Schiavo's side of the family was with her when she died, but disputed the Schindlers' account of why that was. Schiavo's siblings had been asked to leave the room so that the hospice staff could examine her, and Bobby Schindler started arguing with a law enforcement official so Michael Schiavo had him kept out, Felos said.
Wow, Michael Schiavo's lawyer gives an version that puts his client in a better light. Whoda thunk.
Has the law enforcement official backed up that claim? Seems pretty odd that it would be Michael who had to keep him out if it was a law enforcement official he was arguing with.
It suggest that Bill Bennet made a dtupid suggestion and Jeb Bush ignored it. No big.
Um, I seem to recall that Jeb TRIED to send in ... well, not troops, but at least police to reinsert the tube, and that said police were told "not without a judge".
With you on the "stupid suggestion" part, though -- and firmly agreed with pretty much everyone concerned about PAD's initial post. No one's winning here, from any point of view I can think of.
And now the John Paul II death watch continues...
TWL
who plans to write more later
Has the law enforcement official backed up that claim? Seems pretty odd that it would be Michael who had to keep him out if it was a law enforcement official he was arguing with.
I'm sure the cop has more important things to do with his time than answer idiotic questions from people about something that's none of their f--king business. Most police units don't even allow their rank and file members to speak to the media anyway, so if you're looking for him to confirm it, good luck. As for Michael Shiavo keeping him out, he was the legal guardian, and therefore, it was his call.
As for Michael Shiavo keeping him out, he was the legal guardian, and therefore, it was his call.
That still doesn't mean he's not a dick.
If the Schindler's had actually gotten into it with security, they'd have been arrested. This is pretty obviously a case of the guy being spiteful and vindictive. So much for "respecting Terri's wishes."
Um, I seem to recall that Jeb TRIED to send in ... well, not troops, but at least police to reinsert the tube, and that said police were told "not without a judge".
Tim, this is a very confucing story that sort of popped up and got dropped. It was based entirely on annonymous tips so take it all with a grain of salt but here's what I've pieced together from the Miami Herald--apparently after the judge ordered the tube removed the DCF made an appeal to a higher court. This had the result of nullifying, for a 3 hour period, the removal of the tube, although the DCF may not have realized this at first. When they did, the story goes, a bunch of them went to the hospice, possibly with the goal of taking her back ot a hospital--which, due to this loophole, they might have been legally allowed to do (this would have been yet another court case). Butby this time the original judge had closed the loophole. So they had to abandone the idea.
Not quite the "Jeb goes nuts" story that it was presented as...but you have to wonder how our court system got so freaking out of control. It's amazing ANYTHING gets done ( a school I worked for once had to spend 2 years in court fighting a case against a guy who claimed he was illegally fired as a busdriver. His probalem? He was a convicted child abuser!!! WTF?
(BTW, the Palm Beach Post version of the story is a good deal less dramatic--agents were "on standbye" waiting for judicial approval that never came. The story about them being en route and backing down came from Michael Schiavo's lawyer. Is it too much to ask for reporters to dig a little deeper and find out which version is true? What ever happened to investigative journalism?)
That still doesn't mean he's not a dick.
Well, I can't argue with a mind that closed, so I won't bother. I've never met Michael Shiavo, and I'll wager, neither have you, so neither of us really knows what kind of a person he really is. All we know is just what we've read or seen on TV. It's obvious that you're only going to read everything about him in the most negative light possible.
Cops don't have to automatically arrest somebody just for arguing with them. If Terri's brother didn't physically threaten anyone, what exactly would they charge him with?
Personally, I believe both Michael Shiavo and the Schindlers did what they thought was best for Terri. The courts had to make a call as to who knew her wishes and best and the fact that they did not find any of the allegations lobbed at Michael Shiavo credible is an important detail that those who want to try him in the media tend to ignore.
Cops don't have to automatically arrest somebody just for arguing with them. If Terri's brother didn't physically threaten anyone, what exactly would they charge him with?
If the cops give you an order to leave, and you refuse to leave, they'll arrest you.
And if it was just a mild protestation, is that worth banning them from Terri's final moments? Do you think that's "what Terri would have wanted"?
I mean, come on, let's use some logic and common sense here.
I have to agree with just about everything you said, Peter. If you look at the way the rest of the world covered this story, it wasn't exactly America's finest hour, from George Bush flying back to Washington in order to sign an energency bill (ignoring the Texas bill he once signed which went in completely the opposite direction), to members of Congress who are members of the medical profession making a public diagnosis based on examination of a video tape, to the right-to-life people trying to bring water into the hospice, forgetting of course that we're dealing with a woman who probably didn't even have the capability to swallow so the water definitely would have killed her, to the number of people who referred to 'Terry' as if they actually met her.
But the absolute highlight of this parade of hypocrisy were the people who celebrate the sancity of life by- wait for it- making death threats against everyone from the judges that were doing their job, to Schiavo himself. Yeah, that's a good way of showing your respect for life: threaten to kill somebody.
I mean, come on, let's use some logic and common sense here.
Careful. You might be surprised at what happens.
If the cops give you an order to leave, and you refuse to leave, they'll arrest you.
Reread the article. No where does it say that the officer ordered him to leave, only that they argued.
And if it was just a mild protestation, is that worth banning them from Terri's final moments?
I don't know if it was just a "mild protestation." And neither do you. You're bias is showing again.
I mean, come on, let's use some logic and common sense here.
I have been. Take your own advice.
I like how they say the "activist" judges will get whats coming to them, but one of the last judges to rule against the tube was a conservitive judge Bush appointed.
It will soon be moot. The POPE will die soon and Terri will be brushed aside like yesterdays news.
Did anyone see the New York Post or News the other day...big front page picture of Terri...and big bold letters..."NEWS COVERAGE OUT OF CONTROL!" Seriously!
PAD wrote: "Everyone loses. This should never happen again. But it will."
Yep. Wise words, indeed.
George Bush flying back to Washington in order to sign an energency bill (ignoring the Texas bill he once signed which went in completely the opposite direction)
Speaking of confusing coverage...I'd read this in multiple sources, then I read that the bill he signed was, while not what he wanted, at least an improvement over the then current law in Texas...which, if true, is something that really ought to mentioned by critics if they are actually interested in the truth.
Anybody know the truth about this? Anyone care?
Re troops sent in -
This story is unclear. From what I've read, state 'agents' were sent to retrieve Terri & take her away so a feeding tube could be reinserted. However, the local police wouldn't allow it because there was no court order or warrent, so the agents left. After that there was a flurry of denials from Jeb & assorted department heads as to who sent in the agents.
Independant judicary - Yes, the judges are supposed to be fully independant. That's why judges are appointed for life. So that their decisions won't be influenced by politics. The founding fathers saw the danger of judges not being independant.
"activist judge" is just another way of saying 'a judge who doesn't rule our/my way'.
"Tom DeLay what a hypocrit, he pulls the plug on his own father" - and when questioned about, says "it's a personal/family matter"
Anybody know the truth about this? Anyone care?
Well, if it was an improvement ogver the previous law, it couldn't have been much of one. Just look at the most recent use of the bill where the 6 month old was removed from the machine over the parents objections. Also, I haven't heard even the biggest of Bush defenders come forward to defend this law, and if there was a defense to it, you'd think these would be the ones to do so, no matter how half-assed a justification they might have to make to do so.
"Personally, I believe both Michael Shiavo and the Schindlers did what they thought was best for Terri."
Here's the interesting and somewhat sad thing. I absolutely agree with you that they both thought they were doing what was best. The thing is, it seems to me--based purely on observation and not any sort of scientific polling--that those on the husband's side, more often than not, have empathy for the parents and don't condemn them for their efforts. Whereas those on the parents' side, more often than not, want the husband's head on a stake.
PAD
You're wrong, Mr. David. There is one big winner. The media outlets, whether they were the overt puppets of Bush or the guys who wanted a buck, were able to create a terrific circus. They descended over the scene, making everything grist for the mill and baking bread of emotional misery - or, perhaps more appropriately, making lots of "communion wafers" to share that misery with everyone.
Perhaps the most galling was the Paramount show "The Insider," which normally chats glowingly and enthusiastically about celebrity scandal, playing a little "sorrow music" (probably the only piece in their music library) over pictures of Schiavo. And asking totally uninvolved but PR-minded jerks like Mel Gibson what they thought. The only way it would have been worse is if their big celebrity anchor Pat O'Brien hadn't gone into rehab for his drunken obscene phone calls; hearing his smarmy voice faking sympathy would be too much to take.
But for those who'll miss it, don't worry; the Pope's impending death is also being covered by them. The media circus moves to another town with more exotic food. And don't think this is new; go rent the Billy Wilder movie "Ace in the Hole" a.k.a. "The Big Carnival" to see how long ago this has been going on.
From what I've read, state 'agents' were sent to retrieve Terri & take her away so a feeding tube could be reinserted. However, the local police wouldn't allow it because there was no court order or warrent, so the agents left. After that there was a flurry of denials from Jeb & assorted department heads as to who sent in the agents.
Now that's interesting. I had only heard that the agents were "on their way" and turned back. Now this implies that they got there and were made to leave. Someone must be lying or exagerrating, and it doesn't seem like it would be difficult to find out who.
Well, if it was an improvement ogver the previous law, it couldn't have been much of one. Just look at the most recent use of the bill where the 6 month old was removed from the machine over the parents objections. Also, I haven't heard even the biggest of Bush defenders come forward to defend this law, and if there was a defense to it, you'd think these would be the ones to do so, no matter how half-assed a justification they might have to make to do so.
Well, here's the take of someone at the National Review.
In August 1996 the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article describing procedures then in effect in Houston hospitals. Under these procedures, if a doctor wished to deny a patient lifesaving medical treatment and the patient or the patient's surrogate instead steadfastly expressed a desire for life, the doctor would submit the case to the hospital ethics committee. The patient or surrogate would be given 72 hours notice of the committee meeting would be allowed to plead for the patient's life at it. During that short 72 hour period, the patient or surrogate, while preparing to argue for life, could also try to find another health care provider willing to give the lifesaving treatment, food or fluids.
If the ethics committee decided for death, under these procedures there was no appeal. There was no provision that the food, fluids, or lifesaving treatment be provided after the decision while the patient or family tried to find another hospital willing to keep the patient alive.
So under these procedures, the hospitals in Houston were denying life-saving treatment, food and fluids against the wishes of patients and their families, when the hospital ethics committees said their quality of life was too poor. Patients and families were being given only 72 hours after being notified of the proposed denial to find another health care provider.
In 1997 there was an advance directives bill going through the Texas legislature that would have given specific legal sanction to such involuntary denial of life-saving treatment. An effort in the Texas legislature to amend the bill to require treatment pending transfer to a health care provider willing to provide the life-saving treatment had been defeated. When that bill reached Governor George Bush’s desk, he vetoed it, and said he was vetoing it precisely because it authorized hospitals to deny lifesaving medical treatment, food, and fluids against the will of the patients.
But even without that bill, these procedures were still going on. So there was an effort in the next sitting of the legislature, in 1999, to pass protective legislation. Unfortunately, the votes just weren’t there to require lifesaving treatment, food, or fluids be provided by unwilling hospitals. So there were negotiations that resulted in a bill that gave partial protection. That 1999 bill:
first, formalized more protections for in-hospital review
second, gave patients 10 days of treatment while seeking transfer, and third, authorized court proceedings to extend the 10 days for reasonable additional periods to accomplish transfer.
Now this was not what patient advocates wanted and it wasn’t what Governor Bush wanted. However, it was an important advance over the existing situation of no legal requirement of treatment pending transfer, for any period of time. The votes were not there in the Texas legislature to accomplish a more protective bill. So Governor Bush signed it because it was an improvement over the existing law.
Here's the interesting and somewhat sad thing. I absolutely agree with you that they both thought they were doing what was best. The thing is, it seems to me--based purely on observation and not any sort of scientific polling--that those on the husband's side, more often than not, have empathy for the parents and don't condemn them for their efforts. Whereas those on the parents' side, more often than not, want the husband's head on a stake.
Don't know about the "more often than not" part--we are talking about a LOT of people on both sides and I'll wager that the actual number of crazies is a tiny minority--but you are correct that the husband's supporters have overall behaved better.
That should be a lesson for Right to Lifers--if Randall terry or his ilk ever shows up, show them the door. Every time the idiot opens his mouth you can almost hear support growing for whatever it is he opposes. There are fools like that on the left as well--Ward Connely comes to mind--and they should be treated like toxic waste by whoever has the misfortune of seeing them show up, ready to lend a hand.
Here's the interesting and somewhat sad thing. I absolutely agree with you that they both thought they were doing what was best. The thing is, it seems to me--based purely on observation and not any sort of scientific polling--that those on the husband's side, more often than not, have empathy for the parents and don't condemn them for their efforts. Whereas those on the parents' side, more often than not, want the husband's head on a stake.
Well, you don't have to look far to see that, Peter. Just read what some of the people have posted in your own forum about him.
Like most things gone wrong in this country, I blame Bush. I'm still trying to figure out how he sabotaged the Eagles in the Superbowl. Seriously, it's tragic that discourse in this country has been reduced to everything being, "either you're with us or against us."
It's a credit that Michael Shiavo's supporters realized early in the debate that they had nothing to gain by attacking two grieving parents. On the other hand, the Schindlers' attorney had no problem going on Fox News and calling Michael Shiavo a liar and a murdered and say that Judge Greer was "determined to kill Terri."
I think, though, that the constant villification of Michael Shiavo is one of the reasons that polls show how badly the pandering in Washington backfired on DeLay and Bush. It's striking that even among evangelicals, their so-called "base," polls showed strong disapproval of the Congressional interference. Whether they agreed with Michael Shiavo's position or not, the overwhelming majority of Americans have already come to a consensus that these decisions are best resolved among the family, rather than by politicians.
Michael Schaivo will be "gunned down a year hence?"
You give him that long?
I'd be surprised if the guy lasts three months. Same with his lawyer and the judge.
Which is the thing that make me MOST sick about this whole, stupid thing.
Randall Terry and his whole sick, hypocritical crew are only truly "pro-life" as long as it serves their selfish needs. They'll mouth BS Christian platitudes about the sanctity of life, but make it clear that anyone who incurs their wrath must "pay the price" and eventually some deluded fundy nutcase gets the point, picks up a gun, and carries out their wishes.
If George W., for example, is so commited to "erring on the side of life" then why execute all those criminals in Texas? Especially Carla Fay Tucker, the darling of the Christian Right, who'd repented and "reformed" herself. He didn't seem all that keen on "erring on the side of life" in her case.
Make no mistake, those who weep and gnash their teeth over Terri and the "culture of death" they think did her in are killers who are just as brutal and viscious as those they stand against. they'll cry crocidile tears over Terri and then jump for joy when Michael gets murdered.
A bunch of lying,hypocritical wolves dressed up in pro-life life sheep's clothes.
Make no mistake, those who weep and gnash their teeth over Terri and the "culture of death" they think did her in are killers who are just as brutal and viscious as those they stand against. they'll cry crocidile tears over Terri and then jump for joy when Michael gets murdered.
That makes no sense. You're calling them "killers"--on what basis I can't imagine--and yet saying that the opposing side is also cruel and viscious.
Jeeze, everyone, get a frikkin grip.
It's a credit that Michael Shiavo's supporters realized early in the debate that they had nothing to gain by attacking two grieving parents. On the other hand, the Schindlers' attorney had no problem going on Fox News and calling Michael Shiavo a liar and a murdered and say that Judge Greer was "determined to kill Terri."
I think the strongest thing I've seen is that Michael Schiavo's brother is angry that his brother has been called a murderer, and that he harbors ill feeling toward the Schindler family for that. Not sure I blame him for that.
But he also says that a personal apology would heal that...and I think that says volumes as well.
Thomas R. wrote: "You're wrong, Mr. David. There is one big winner. The media outlets, whether they were the overt puppets of Bush or the guys who wanted a buck, were able to create a terrific circus."
"Overt puppets of Bush" infers that, for political reasons, conservatives were behind the whole controversy and subsequent media circus. This is wishful thinking by the anti-Bush crowd, and it exposes a fundamental problem facing the Democratic Party today: There is a sizeable and vocal (even obnoxious) faction within the Democratic Party which seems to believe that all "pro-life" religious people are Republicans.
This view alienates moderate and conservative Democrats, and is why the Democratic Party is so badly splintered right now. I read a number of columns by avowed Democrats supporting the parents of Terri Schaivo, who wanted the feeding tube to stay in. Even Jesse Jackson came down on the parents' side, making those who "blame" the controversy on DeLay and other Republicans only look particularly foolish and ill-informed.
As I said in a response I posted on Mike Gold's column, in my opinion, the Democratic Party is currently on life support, and if the radical Democrats don't lose their myopia and intolerence for those who disagree with their "progressive" viewpoint, the next victim in a semi-vegitative state they kill might be the party itself.
And now the parents of Terri Schiavo are selling the personal information of all the misguided suckers...er...I mean, donors, to a direct-marketing firm.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/kgtv/20050329/lo_wkmg/2648050
As I said in a response I posted on Mike Gold's column, in my opinion, the Democratic Party is currently on life support, and if the radical Democrats don't lose their myopia and intolerence for those who disagree with their "progressive" viewpoint, the next victim in a semi-vegitative state they kill might be the party itself.
Yes, because as we all know, the Republicans under the leadership of the Bush administration has been nothing but open-minded towards those that disagree with their "neoconservative" viewpoint. /sarcasm
"That makes no sense. You're calling them "killers"--on what basis I can't imagine--and yet saying that the opposing side is also cruel and viscious."
Huh -- you're right. Got carried away. what I should have said was:
"Make no mistake, those who weep and gnash their teeth over Terri and the "culture of death" they think did her in are killers who are just as brutal and viscious as they imagine those they stand against to be. They'll cry crocodile tears over Terri and then jump for joy when Michael gets murdered."
Den wrote: "Yes, because as we all know, the Republicans under the leadership of the Bush administration has been nothing but open-minded towards those that disagree with their "neoconservative" viewpoint. /sarcasm"
Why is everything in terms of Bush or the Republicans? I wasn't talking about the Republican Party's problems, I was talking about the Democratic Party and ITS problems. Keep in mind that I was raised and spent a large chunk of my life in a city -- Chicago -- that has not had a Republican mayor since 1931.
This should never have happened. Experts are stating that given care and therapy, Terri could have been a functioning, talking human being again with perhaps some mild problems using her arms. But she was shut away from her loving family, denied music, TV, any sunlight - denied even antibiotics for a uninary tract infection - all on orders from a man who sleeps in another woman's bed every night.
This was murder.
Why is everything in terms of Bush or the Republicans? I wasn't talking about the Republican Party's problems, I was talking about the Democratic Party and ITS problems.
So that means I can't talk about the Republicans?
Hey Race?
Are you a doctor who personally examined Terri and are familiar with the case and have even a shred of real information?
Didn't think so, asshole.
To suggest that the husband will be gunned down by a supposed ex-Operation Rescue member is ok on this site? But the thoughtful, researched opinion that it was wrong to remove the feeding tube is not ok?
There are wacko, extreme factions on both sides of the political spectrum that have done such things. But there is NO reason to even suggest this will happen to the husband other than to villify a position with which you disagree. I can pull up multiple stories in just the last few weeks of "wacko liberals" who have thrown things at conservative speakers, such as Pat Buchannan and William Kirstol. And yes, there are stories of people trying to storm the room to bring food and water to Terri. This is not a matter of ideological neccesity, but simply individuals who take advantage of a situation to act in an inappropriate manner, in a way that neither side would endorse.
Disagree with conservatives all you want about this case. But spare me the over the top scare tactics of saying "conservatives" are just moments away from killing the husband.
Iowa Jim
This should never have happened. Experts are stating that given care and therapy, Terri could have been a functioning, talking human being again with perhaps some mild problems using her arms. But she was shut away from her loving family, denied music, TV, any sunlight - denied even antibiotics for a uninary tract infection
Wow. Not a single word that has any basis in fact.
Fact: The overwhelming consensus by physicians who were not seeking self-promotion was that Terri Shiavo had no higher brain function and no hope of recovery.
Fact: He cerebral cortex was filled with spinal fluid. There is no therapy or treatment that can repair this kind of brain damage.
Fact: Michael Shiavo spent five years caring for his wife before finally accepting what the doctors had been telling him all along, that she had no hope of recovery.
Fact: Michael Shiavo went as far as taking nursing course to better care for her.
It takes about five seconds of googling to uncover these facts. Come back when you have something other than hate-filled lies.
"But spare me the over the top scare tactics of saying "conservatives" are just moments away from killing the husband."
Umm, Jim:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/25/arrest.schiavo/index.html
"Authorities said Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview, North Carolina, offered $250,000 for the killing of Michael Schiavo and another $50,000 for the death of Circuit Court Judge George Greer"
Yes, because as we all know, the Republicans under the leadership of the Bush administration has been nothing but open-minded towards those that disagree with their "neoconservative" viewpoint
Havent' you heard? It's one big tent in Republican world. Everyone is welcome.
Especially if Tom DeLay and his bully boys have anything to say about it. Can you believe he wants to impeach the Federal judges who didn't fall into lockstep with Congress and instead followed the law in regards to Schiavo? What a chilling effect. Bush should make it a moral imperative to overrule DeLay's comments immediately. The moment you start punishing judges just because you don't like their opinions, that's pretty much it for checks and balances.
What check and balance? That is the very point. There IS a constitutional way of providing a check on the judiciary. It is impeachment.
Let us say the courts began ruling not only that gay marriage was wrong but that someone who even had a gay orientation was a criminal and should be imprisoned. The first check on the latter absurd claim would be a higher court. But another constitutional check is to remove the judge through impeachment.
The fact is, we have some very incompetent judges in place right now. Not because they disagree with me, but because they truly are incompetent. But the very logic you are using is what keeps them in place to continue making absurd rulings. (For examples, just read the Reader's Digest annual list of bad judges.)
In this particular case, I am not worried about Delay's threat. I happen to believe the courts did not protect Terri. But I am not a lawyer and don't see clear proof of legal incompetence. And that is what will have to be shown if this goes to impeachment. It is one thing to make charges now, it is another to actually prove it later.
Bottom line, our system is not perfect, but it is the best one out there. While I do think it let Terri down, I think it will survive Delay's actions.
One final thought: It is interesting how both sides are often unwilling to believe the motives of the other. (Yes, that includes me at times, though I try my best.) What some of you don't get is that some of these politicians DO believe what they are saying. They are not just grand standing. This issue does matter to them. I personally think that the comparisons between this case and Delay's father are just plain invalid. But even if Delay truly is a hypocrite, there are many others who have been highly consistent on this issue. The vilification of the Republicans will probably continue, but it comes more from personal opinions the actual facts.
Iowa Jim
"Authorities said Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview, North Carolina, offered $250,000 for the killing of Michael Schiavo and another $50,000 for the death of Circuit Court Judge George Greer"
The fact that one person did so does not mean this is what 99.9% of conservatives want or approve of. Anymore than I believe 99.9% of liberals want George W. Bush assasinated or agree with the extremists who suggest such a thing.
Iowa Jim
Well, you don't have to look far to see that, Peter. Just read what some of the people have posted in your own forum about him.
Interesting... who here is calling for Michael Schiavo's head on a stake?
Glad to see logic and common sense being used.
Interesting... who here is calling for Michael Schiavo's head on a stake?
Obviously reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Peter was speaking metaphorically. I know that's a big word, so consult a dictionary. Several people hear have been villifying him, calling him a murderer and (oh, I don't know) a dick.
So? You've been a dick in this thread too. Calling for your head on a stake would be if I said something like, "This man is evil!"
I love "conservative", mindless automatons (redundant, I know) that march in lock-step with whatever they are told to think. I've often thought that the "problem" that liberals have is that they fail to mindlessly obey whatever directives are passed down to them from on high. I often hear my friends and co-workers criticizing a liberal politician for some bone-headed maneuver, but my conservative friends and co-workers are always ready to spout the days talking points, despite the fact that it may contradict the fundamentals of "conservative" philosophy. Where does this mindless loyalty come from, and how can I bottle it? I find it difficult to believe that the vast majority of conservities I speak to and read the writings of agree on every single high profile issue that comes out, but they are very, very good at making it seem that way.
Since when did "conservatives" muck around in state politics? When did conservatives favor big government? When did conservatives decide that state's rights meant nothing? When did conservatives feel that it's the government's job to interfere in personal family matters.
When did conservatives decide that Republican-appointed judges (over half of the 22-or-so judges that presided over this case, and that doesn't include the 9 on the Supreme Court that refused to hear it) were 'activists'? And if they are, can we really trust the Republicans not to appoint more out of control, whacko judges in the future??
The truth is that poor Terri is just the flavor of the week for a conservative political arm that is increasingly enamored with power and less concerned with the will of the people. Hell, they don't even seem conserned with their base anymore; despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of people, including the evangelicals that delivered them the election in November, think that the government should butt the hell out. So unwilling to accept the fact that they've made a mistake, gone too far, and overstepped their bounds these people continue to pound the podium and fight for face-time in front of the cameras, despite a downward spiral in support from anyone who is not a mindless zombie or a nutso.
Speaking of the "evangelicals" and the rest of the moronic 53% that voted for Bush in November, these are the same boneheads that are now reaping what they have sown, giving Bush the lowest approval rating of any re-elected president since such polls were taken on the very day that he was sworn in for his second term, and it's only gone down from there. How could these people vote for him when they don't like him, the job he's doing, the economy, his proposed budget or porgrams, the war he wages, or anything else that he sets his mind to, including meddling in the private affairs of people struggling with life's most difficult and intimate decisions?
The ultimate insult is the fact that Bush so effortlessly weaves this case into 9/11. Is this the sign of some transition period? Are we going to phase out justifying every poor decision that this President makes by shouting 9/11 until everyone forgets what you're talking about and replace it with this latest tragedy? Or is this just more of the same, where any topic, no matter how unrelated, just gets awkwardly tied back into 9/11, the gift from on high that got one of the most bumbling and foolish Presidents in modern history re-elected?
Personal, private decisions like these are made by families each and every day, and they will continue to be for as long as the government obeys the wishes of the people. I know that when my time comes or, God forbid, the time of my wife or parents or, even worse, my children, that the last thing in the world that I want is George Dubyah knocking on my door and instructing me on how to properly make my decision.
And I think that a President who continues to ignore genocides in any country not rich with oil overrun by a dictator that 'tried to kill mah dahddy', who is responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqis and 1,500 A,erican troops, and who personally signed dozens of orders of execution is the last fricken' person who should be preaching about a "culture of life."
I used to think that conservatives thought that life ended at birth; once you're out of the womb it's a free for all for bombings and executions. But now it's obvious that they're also in favor of life after death. For people who are so gosh-darned convinced that there's a Heaven waiting for them on the other side, they sure seem obsessed with staving it off as long as possible.
Of course, if I were Tom DeLay, I'd probably be concerned about the afterlife, too.
Phinn
The fact that one person did so does not mean this is what 99.9% of conservatives want or approve of. Anymore than I believe 99.9% of liberals want George W. Bush assasinated or agree with the extremists who suggest such a thing.
Nor did anyone suggest that; it was merely suggested that some 'culture of life' nutbag would try to kill Michael within a week of Terri's death. Apparently the original poster gave the nutbag too much credit.
It's great that killing two living, vital human beings is the twisted 'eye-for-an-eye' to letting a woman who has been a vegetable for 15 years die quietly and in dignity after suffering for so long. Only a fundamentalist could even begin to try to explain that...
Phinn
"The fact that one person did so does not mean this is what 99.9% of conservatives want or approve of."
No, but it does mean that there is a "reason to even suggest this will happen to the husband other than to villify a position with which you disagree", despite your claim to the contrary.
If you want to switch this to some claim about the general base of conservatives, then you seem to be addressing some statement not made in this thread.
I can pull up multiple stories in just the last few weeks of "wacko liberals" who have thrown things at conservative speakers, such as Pat Buchannan and William Kirstol.
Yes, because throwing salad dressing at Pat Buchanan is exactly the same thing as putting a bounty on a judge's head. Can I call bullshit on that?
What some of you don't get is that some of these politicians DO believe what they are saying. They are not just grand standing. This issue does matter to them.
That's probably true, but I personally don't believe that DeLay is one of them
So? You've been a dick in this thread too. Calling for your head on a stake would be if I said something like, "This man is evil!"
I'll tell you what, Matt, why don't we continue this discussion once you've grown up a little more, okay?
I don't usually like to argue with children.
Jeeze, who would have thought the discussion could take a downward turn?
I love "conservative", mindless automatons (redundant, I know) that march in lock-step with whatever they are told to think. I've often thought that the "problem" that liberals have is that they fail to mindlessly obey whatever directives are passed down to them from on high. I often hear my friends and co-workers criticizing a liberal politician for some bone-headed maneuver, but my conservative friends and co-workers are always ready to spout the days talking points, despite the fact that it may contradict the fundamentals of "conservative" philosophy. Where does this mindless loyalty come from, and how can I bottle it? I find it difficult to believe that the vast majority of conservities I speak to and read the writings of agree on every single high profile issue that comes out, but they are very, very good at making it seem that way.
Respectfully submitted for your perusal: www.instapundit.com and http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp
At NROs the corner you can read the various arguing among the conservative members over Sciavo and other matters. Some see this as evidence of an upcoming crackup among conservatives though I think its more likely the party that DOESN'T allow for disagreement and dissent that should worry.
But I believe you when you say that you believe that conservatives are always in agreement. One of the bad things about the internet is that one can, if one chooses, pretty much limit ones self to only those views that one wants to hear. You can create a nice warm little world where things are as you want them to be, with the occasional nasty surprise from the Real World the only fly in the ointment (Elections that have results that Simply Cannot Be--that sort of thing.).
It's fictional but nothing's perfect.
"Authorities said Richard Alan Meywes of Fairview, North Carolina, offered $250,000 for the killing of Michael Schiavo and another $50,000 for the death of Circuit Court Judge George Greer"
The fact that one person did so does not mean this is what 99.9% of conservatives want or approve of.
Yeah, but all it takes is one bullet from one nutcase to make Michael Schiavo or Judge Greer dead. I think the more heated rhetoric on both sides should be toned down, and the extremist elements have to be taken seriously and admonished to ratchet it down. It's not like targetting judges for death is something that's implausible...
The fact that one person did so does not mean this is what 99.9% of conservatives want or approve of.
I'm not talking about the large majority of conservatives who are in touch with reality. As a conservative myself, I can whole-heartedly say that I wouldn't want to see someone gunned down in the cause of "life."
And I would argue with your "99.9%" number. Have you BEEN to FreeRepublic.com lately? There are lot of people out there who are buying champagne in anticipation of a Schaivo/Greer/Felos trifecta.
It's not enough to shake our heads and condemn it after the fact and refer to the "ex-Operation Rescue member" as a "poor deluded soul" who's "acted on his own." Randall Terry has done this before, and he'll do it again. He knows if he keeps pushing it more and more, some nutjob will carry his water.
Yeah, but all it takes is one bullet from one nutcase to make Michael Schiavo or Judge Greer dead. I think the more heated rhetoric on both sides should be toned down, and the extremist elements have to be taken seriously and admonished to ratchet it down. It's not like targetting judges for death is something that's implausible...
There's no small wisdom there but suppose Bush gets asassinated by some kook--will everyone who talked or wrote about how the country was going to hell and our future was at risk and it's just like Germany yadda yadda have to feel guilty about encouraging a nutcase?
The way to eliminate the threat of nutcases is not to try to create a conflict free world to placate them. The way is to come up with some better method for the early identification and neutralization of nutcases.
There's no small wisdom there but suppose Bush gets asassinated by some kook--will everyone who talked or wrote about how the country was going to hell and our future was at risk and it's just like Germany yadda yadda have to feel guilty about encouraging a nutcase?
No, I'd feel more pissed that this nutcase DIDN'T GET IT. The call was for the ballot box and not the point of the gun. (Which I think is a different matter than someone actually calling for assasinations; Richard Alan Meywes is simply on the same level as the Aryan Nations figure who called for the assasination of judges he didn't like).
What some of you don't get is that some of these politicians DO believe what they are saying. They are not just grand standing. This issue does matter to them.
Maybe. But, going straight to the top, I'm not too sure about Bush himself for all his talk. Do any of you know who Sun Hudson was? While the world was watching the circus around the Schiavi family an infant in Texas Children's Hospital was taken off life support against the will of the mother.
Sun's death was the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge (that I can find)to discontinue an infant's life support against a parent's wishes.
Texas law allows hospitals to do this even if patient's family disagrees.
A far more important and scary case, I think, than the Terri Schiavo case. In the Hudson case, for the first time ever, a hospital bureacracy terminates the life of a child (who was not in a vegetative state), against the family's wishes, when the family can't pay their bills.
It was the Texas Futile Care Law that empowered the hospital to do this. This thing was signed into law by then-Governor George W. Bush.
Really went to the extreme to build that "culture of life" he talks about so much.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/HS/content/htm/hs.002.00.000166.00.htm
This should link you to the law
A far more important and scary case, I think, than the Terri Schiavo case. In the Hudson case, for the first time ever, a hospital bureacracy terminates the life of a child (who was not in a vegetative state), against the family's wishes, when the family can't pay their bills.
You are misrepresenting the case. Baby Hudson had been on a breather since birth last summer and would never be off of it. He had a disease that would always keep his lungs too small to support his body. The baby was not disconnected because the mother couldn't pay the bills, but because there was NO HOPE. The baby lived just moments after the breather was disconnected.
In such an instance the attending physicians and the hospital ethics board must concur that there is no possibility of survival. Then, the family has the option to 1) legally challenge and 2) find medical alternatives.
The hospital - in a very classy move - paid the expenses of the mother's legal challenge. Once the judge ruled the hospital had done its due diligence, the mother was given 10 days to find alternatives. Every hospital that was called (over 30) reviewed the case and refused to take it on for the same reason.
The mother was also a bit on the crazy side. She claimed the baby's father was not a man but "the sun in the sky".
I think the hospital did the right thing under the circumstances, and went above and beyond in trying to deal with it. When you have a guardian unwilling to accept the inevitable, this is the type of guidelines (kept under STRICT control) can be a good thing.
Can you site a link on the story with those details. I knew about the mother but several stories (News sites/Not blog sites)I've read on it made the baby's condition to be a long shot but not an impossible cure.
R. Maheras:
As I said in a response I posted on Mike Gold's column, in my opinion, the Democratic Party is currently on life support, and if the radical Democrats don't lose their myopia and intolerence for those who disagree with their "progressive" viewpoint, the next victim in a semi-vegitative state they kill might be the party itself.
Den:
Yes, because as we all know, the Republicans under the leadership of the Bush administration has been nothing but open-minded towards those that disagree with their "neoconservative" viewpoint. /sarcasm
...and this sort of "witty banter" is why it is my belief that unless there is a successful centrist party that emerges in the next decade or two, this country is gonna fall completely apart. A revered statesman once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." It's even worse when the divisions do not cut across any boundary; where, quite literally, there's a Republican family in one house and a Democratic family in the next...
Only if we overcome the labels "liberal," "conservative," "Democrat," or "Republican" can we steer the country back on course...
I originally found the story on the Dallas News web site (I live in the DFW area). http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/031605dntexbaby.bc467.html
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/004081.php is a blog that has a lot of commentary from someone in the Houston area who saw a LOT more of it, and here is a Houston Chronicle article from a Baylor doctor. The child had to be constantly anesthetized to be on the ventilator:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/3103113
Here's the interesting and somewhat sad thing. I absolutely agree with you that they both thought they were doing what was best. The thing is, it seems to me--based purely on observation and not any sort of scientific polling--that those on the husband's side, more often than not, have empathy for the parents and don't condemn them for their efforts. Whereas those on the parents' side, more often than not, want the husband's head on a stake.
PAD
Well, I'd certainly agree with that, but I don't think it necessarily speaks volumes about folks on the parents' side. I mean, I personally supported the husband. However, ultimately that means supporting a person's death. Yes, it's also supporting the end to a person's needless suffering, but there's no getting around the fact that you're heralding a cause that will leave someone dead.
The fact that the opposers of Michael Schaivo--who wanted death--were angrier than Schavio's supporters were at the parents--who wanted life, shouldn't be really surprising, should it?
Maybe when our culture stops treating the concept of death as the ultimate evil rather than a natural an inevitable part of life (and perhaps even fun, who the hell knows?), that will be different.
"What check and balance? That is the very point. There IS a constitutional way of providing a check on the judiciary. It is impeachment."
What are you, the Conservative movement poster boy? Is there NO extremist Conservative idiocy that you will not leap to defend?
Tom DeLay literally threatened Federal judges with impeachment for doing their jobs simply because he didn't like their decisions. That is not "checks and balances." That's bullying, pure and simple, no matter how eagerly you try and put one of your typical spins on it. It is indeed "one thing to make the charges now," and that one thing is "retaliation." It is wholly inappropriate, it is an abuse of power, and I personally think any Conservative with a lick of sense should condemn such thinking immediately.
PAD
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition=thanatophoricdysplasia
This site explains what Sun had. One passage is key.
*"The term thanatophoric is Greek for "death bearing." Infants with this condition are usually stillborn or die shortly after birth from respiratory failure; however, some children have survived into childhood with a lot of medical help. These children are severely mentally retarded due to a variety of brain abnormalities and have difficulty breathing on their own."*
This site is one of the few I've found that you don't have to have a Masters Degree to read the entire thing. It does state that the victim's chance of passing it on to later generations is 0% since victims die but this site
has updated medical info that seems to state, from what I can tell, (damn it, Jim! I'm a cop! Not a doctor!) that this may no longer be the solid rule.
With the newer info (thanks for the link) it doesn't seem quite as scary for the direction we're going. But (big But).....
If the latest Med info says that the infant can be kept alive into late childhood and that there may beways to deal with this on the near horizon; where does that fall in "err on the side of life?"
The baby was kept alive on a machine. So was Terri. It's still in dispute if she could have lived without a machine. Terri may well have had a better chance of living but Sun still had a chance at a longer, if not fuller, life then he had. So where do we draw that line?
Make no mistake. I thought that the outcome with Terri was the right one. I want to read a bit more on Sun but it seems that it may have been right as well. But will our lawmakers, the majority party seeming to disagree with me on Terri, do something so stupid and over reaching in the attempt to err on the side of life that we'll all be posting a few years from now on why the government should let babies like Sun die as well as keep away, living wills or no, from adults like Terri? If they stay the course of their soap boxes (yeah, slim chance really but stranger things seem to be happening in politics of late) we might. Now, that's scary.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503290007 has information on the under-reported last minuted intervention plans.
Tom DeLay literally threatened Federal judges with impeachment for doing their jobs simply because he didn't like their decisions. That is not "checks and balances." That's bullying, pure and simple, no matter how eagerly you try and put one of your typical spins on it. It is indeed "one thing to make the charges now," and that one thing is "retaliation." It is wholly inappropriate, it is an abuse of power, and I personally think any Conservative with a lick of sense should condemn such thinking immediately.
How, exactly, is it bullying? How is it an abuse of power? Is there a single judge, liberal or conservative, who is going to change their opinion because Delay made this "threat"?
First, I don't condemn it simply because there IS a conflict between two constitutional entities here. The Judicial branch is not "above" the Congressional branch. Judges can strike down congressional laws, but they should not be writing them. In this case, they did not strike down the law so much as simply ignore it. And let's be clear: Congress did not change any prior ruling in this case, they simply demanded it be changed to a federal court -- which is their constitutional right to do. Was that the best thing to do? Perhaps not. But they did NOT defy a court. Nor did they unconstitutionally remove a state's right. Which is why the feeding tube never was actually put back in. Whether I like it or not, the system DID work as it was supposed to.
Second, whether you agree with the reason why or not, it is Delay's option to threaten impeachment. As I said before, the threat is rather empty in my opinion. But I don't think it is grand standing. I think it is frustration. Until a judge is actually brought up for an actual impeachment proceeding, it is not even close to an abuse of power. (Or would you consider the threats made to impeach Bush over the war in Iraq also an abuse of power?) I doubt it will actually go that far.
Do I endorse Delay's threats? No, for two reasons: it will not go anywhere, so it is an empty threat, and it doesn't address the real issue. But will I condemn his actions? No.
Iowa Jim
Yes, because throwing salad dressing at Pat Buchanan is exactly the same thing as putting a bounty on a judge's head. Can I call bullshit on that?
What is not the same is that aggressive and even violent actions are actually occurring against conservatives, not just threats of violence. Obviously, if the bounty is real, it is a criminal act and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But it is interesting how the acts against conservatives are overlooked while conservatives are accused of creating a culture of violence.
Iowa Jim
What are you, the Conservative movement poster boy? Is there NO extremist Conservative idiocy that you will not leap to defend?
The answers are "no" and "yes." I condemn any and all statements that advocate violence against Michael, the judge, etc. I condemn the violation of the law for any reason other than passively refusing to do an act that goes against ones personal beliefs. If there had actually been a raid by Jeb Bush or Congress or the White House to actually "free" Terri, I would condemn it.
Of course I am sure there are plenty of other conservative idiocies I would be happy to defend.
Iowa Jim
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503290007 has information on the under-reported last minuted intervention plans.
Funny that after complaining about the lack of attention that the story rceived Media Matters was forced to aknowledge that it HAD been reported on...Fox news. Heh.
Of course, one problem may be that the original story could not be corraborated. The original seemd to have a lot of anonymous sources so...
Hopefully the now indisputable fact that Sandy Berger stole classified documents, psersonally cut them up with scissors, and lied about it will get the attention it deserves...but who knows?
First, I don't condemn it simply because there IS a conflict between two constitutional entities here. The Judicial branch is not "above" the Congressional branch. Judges can strike down congressional laws, but they should not be writing them. In this case, they did not strike down the law so much as simply ignore it
I find this incredibly hard to believe. In fact, I find this an incredible distortion of fact. I think you need to defend this.
Funny that after complaining about the lack of attention that the story rceived Media Matters was forced to aknowledge that it HAD been reported on...Fox news. Heh.
Actually it states this....
Fox News host Juliet Huddy mentioned the Herald report on the March 26 edition of Fox & Friends.* There was no mention on network news broadcasts.
I wouldn't really say that's reporting. Without seeing the transcript I would guess that it went the way of a number of other things that got mentioned on Fox & Friends about this case (or others). I'll bet on a, "those nutty libs are actually trying to say..." type of thing. Plus, lets face it... Fox and Friends is to the news what Good Morning America is to the news. They're both the fast food version of news.
Plus it does point out a number of other sources. It's not like Fox was the only one. It's just that most the other sited sources were or were closer to being harder news sources.
And, hey, since you seem to be taking a bit of a sarky shot at Media Matters I should point out that they, quite fairly, did list even that minor mention. They also updated their site to point out that the Factor did a piece on it after media Matters put their piece up. Seems to be a fairly unbiased little write up for them (for a change.)
Of course, one problem may be that the original story could not be corraborated.
You are talking about the same network that was reporting that the Pope had died for about ten or so minutes today. Understandable I guess since so much was coming through the wires but they should have noticed that no one else was breaking that bit of news. Still, it's a fun bit of timing for talking about Fox News and corraborating things. Or maybe it's just the huge doses of flu medication that's making its way through my system that makes it seem funny.
But it is interesting how the acts against conservatives are overlooked while conservatives are accused of creating a culture of violence.
Who overlooked it? It was on the Yahoo homepage this morning.
And let's be clear: Congress did not change any prior ruling in this case, they simply demanded it be changed to a federal court -- which is their constitutional right to do.
But here's the thing, Jim, the federal courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court (four times) had already looked at the case and found no reason to overturn the state court's decision. What Congress ordered was a "do over" because they didn't like that ruling. The facts of the case didn't change, so it isn't all that shocking that the federal courts didn't rule differently the second time around. To threaten judges only because they didn't bend over and take it from Congress is an abuse of power.
For anyone who has not yet done so, and wants to see if they can actually laugh at something coming out of this whole mess, I strongly recommend this week's SOUTH PARK (to be repeated yet on Saturday and Sunday) for several interesting POVs on the subject.
If nothing else, I guarantee that, when the missing last page of Kenny's will is finally found and read, you may find yourself laughing more than you've laughed at anything in a long time.
Oh, yeah.
Somebody tell me how they do that! When South Park did the school election and nailed the entire 2000 election I thought, "wow. They couldn't have known just how funny that would actually turn out when they did it." Then they came out with other eps that were fairly close to topical. But this? I thought it took months to put an animated (even computer animated) show together. These guys must being doing it (and dead on funny as hell) in days/weeks. Either that or I really want to see their lotto picks for the year.
And let's be clear: Congress did not change any prior ruling in this case, they simply demanded it be changed to a federal court -- which is their constitutional right to do.
Actually, I don't think it is. At least, according to the ennumerated powers in the Constitution, the Schiavo case does not fall into any of the categories where federal courts have jurisdiction. The simple demand to hear it in a federal court doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on.
Jerry writes:
Funny that after complaining about the lack of attention that the story rceived Media Matters was forced to aknowledge that it HAD been reported on...Fox news. Heh.
Actually it states this....
Fox News host Juliet Huddy mentioned the Herald report on the March 26 edition of Fox & Friends.* There was no mention on network news broadcasts.
And, hey, since you seem to be taking a bit of a sarky shot at Media Matters I should point out that they, quite fairly, did list even that minor mention.
Actually, what they wrote down at the bottom was:
* Correction: This item originally failed to note that the Herald story was mentioned on the March 26 edition of Fox & Friends. We regret the error. The story was also discussed on the March 29 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, which aired after the original item was posted online.
So the original article had nothing about Fox at all. I wasn't really picking on Media Matters, I just found it amusing that a story that puts a republican in a poor light only got mentioned on the news channel that many liberals claim is just an extension of the Republican party, Just a little ironic (and for me maybe it was just the migrane medicine talking. One nice thing about visiting my ex-wife is that she always stocks me up on expired medication).
Of course, one problem may be that the original story could not be corraborated.
You are talking about the same network that was reporting that the Pope had died for about ten or so minutes today. Understandable I guess since so much was coming through the wires but they should have noticed that no one else was breaking that bit of news. Still, it's a fun bit of timing for talking about Fox News and corraborating things.
Errr...no. If Fox news is bad at corraborating things then maybe that's why it was the only one to mention the uncorraborated story about Jeb Bush. Which was sort of my point. Why should Media Matters be surprised that lots of outlets took a pass on a story that, while it sounded nice and juicy, doesn't seem to have anyone willing to vouch for it and use their real name?
One of the problems with the media of today is that it is easy to get a lie out and have it travel around the world in days before anyone can reveal it to be false and by the time they do we've gone through 20 other hot stories. Bill Moyer recently wrote a widely read article that contained a bogus story about some James Watt. Watt challenged him on it and Moyers apologized (to his credit). You STILL seethis story popping up here and therein blogs and commentaries. It'll be in Watt's obituary in some places.
So if Jeb admits later that it was true or the newspaper admits later that it wasn't, the one that lied will probably get away with it, the story will have moved on. Iwish someone would take the time to actually nail it down while it matters.
Jerry wondered, about SOUTH PARK, "Oh, yeah.
Somebody tell me how they do that! When South Park did the school election and nailed the entire 2000 election I thought, "wow. They couldn't have known just how funny that would actually turn out when they did it." Then they came out with other eps that were fairly close to topical. But this? I thought it took months to put an animated (even computer animated) show together. These guys must being doing it (and dead on funny as hell) in days/weeks. Either that or I really want to see their lotto picks for the year."
In interviews, Trey Parker and Matt Stone said they can get an interview done in a week or two (as when they rushed the "who is Eric Cartman's father" episode after everyone hated the April Fool's prank), so it's not that surprising they could get this episode done this quickly. It's also nothing that the ending they came up with (which was frickin' hysterical!) didn't rely on the outcome of the real-life case, but was appicable regardless of the result of the real-life trial.
The time South Park most impressed me with their speed was regarding the famous photo of Elian Gonzalez crying in the closet with a relative during the Easter morning raid. They had that photo spoofed in an episode that aired for the first time just three days later. Even if the episode is already built, they can clearly put together another scene or two and slip it in on only a few days notice. (Or is that "days' notice"?)
By the way--Sciavo's sister-in-law, who lives not very far from me, has asked for police protection because she has received several death threats against her and her children from various sources.
Way to go, "culture of life" ...
R. Maheras, I'm sure by now you've heard about the memos passed by TOm Delay (who now denies to the hilt that he made it and blames a "staffer"...yeah, right) promoting the "opportunity" the Schiavo case had. The Republicans DID parlay this case into something big...and are now standing with salad dressing on their faces because of it.
I'm at least glad that you didn't deny that most news media are toeing the Republican line. Although they really didn't have to; their need to exploit human tragedy and screw up people's lives for the sake of a story would have brought them to that side anyway. I've worked in local TV for decades. I know how the news mind works...when it works at all.
So, is everyone enjoying the newest death watch? Whether you're enjoying it or not, are you still paying rapt attention to it on TV and in the paper? If so, then Faux News and their compatriots have done their jobs.
Thomas R. wrote: "The Republicans DID parlay this case into something big...and are now standing with salad dressing on their faces because of it."
Not "The" Republicans... it was allegedly "A" Republican. I try not to paint either Republicans or Democrats with broad brush.
But you ignore my main point, which is that a significant number of Democrats also wanted Schaivo's feeding tube to remain in.
As far as the media "toeing the Republican line" regarding the Schaivo case, has the thought ever occurred to you that there are a sizeable number of people who are Republican, Democrat and Independent who just might not agree that Schaivo should have been allowed to die? Despite what some hard-line leftists may think, the Republicans don't always reflect the minority view about an issue.
From the perspective of watching my mom deteriorate from Alzheimer's, watch my dad see his best friend fade away more everyday, from the perspective of swabbing her mouth on her deathbed to give her a LITTLE comfort from the dehydration, from the perspective of having to watch your dad cry more in one day then you EVER saw him cry in the years before, from the perspective of seeing firsthand that death for the most part is not a pretty thing, and we usually don't go easy, I offer this thought for those of you that that think Schiavo is a Killer:
Until you've been in his shoes, shut your pie holes. I'm not trying to be sanctimonious, on a high horse, or preachy, but I am so very tired of hearing what "life" is, and what Terri "had to teach us." Compassion is more than just a feeding tube, it's letting go when it's needed, and not turning someone's life into a circus to push your own agenda or theories. That's all that happened here.
But who cares now? The Pope died a little bit ago. On to another media event...
"How, exactly, is it bullying? How is it an abuse of power?"
And while we're asking questions, how's the view of Tom DeLay's prostate from where you are? Must be pretty clear.
"Is there a single judge, liberal or conservative, who is going to change their opinion because Delay made this "threat"?"
Read up on the term "chilling effect."
PAD
R. Maheras, I'm sure by now you've heard about the memos passed by TOm Delay (who now denies to the hilt that he made it and blames a "staffer"...yeah, right) promoting the "opportunity" the Schiavo case had. The Republicans DID parlay this case into something big...and are now standing with salad dressing on their faces because of it.
Unless you know something I don't, the "memo" was supposedly distributed TO SENATE members, NOT distributed BY a member of the House.
If there is new info on which you based your statement, please send a link--I've been curious about this story.
re; "salad dressing"--if the left isn't careful they might manage to do something nobody every expected--make Pat Buchanan look classy in comparison.
In the "For What It's Worth" category, a new Zogby poll indicates that the decision to remove the tube may not have been as popular as the highly loaded and heavily cited ABC poll indicated.
http://www.lifenews.com/bio891.html
Doesn't change my opinion but it may mean that those hoping for an uprising among the electorate may be in for a surprise. Again.
Zogby poll indicates that the decision to remove the tube may not have been as popular...
I'm not sure popular is the word that I would use but I know what you're saying. This thing is prob going to be split right down the middle by the end of it all. Two or three polls I've seen seem to go one way or the other and each one disagrees with the next. Just the odd poll can be sited as biase or "loaded" but I have a feeling this is going to end up like the 2000 election polls. So many of them came out so close but with a different winner then the one before it. I think it's the same thing here. The nation is, not a money bet mind you, 50/50 on this or as close as makes no odds.
What I'm interested in now is to see who makes the dumber move next. Some of the less shining examples of rational minds on both side of the media have already started talking as though Terri is the movements vote getter in the 2006 & 2008 elections. Any bets on if or how soon some twit in one of the two parties puts that forward as a platform &, even more fun, if that gets them thier votes or costs them their votes?
That still doesn't mean he's not a dick.
What's your point?
This is pretty obviously a case of the guy being spiteful and vindictive.
Right, after all the utter bullshit that the Schindler's had said about Michael Schiavo in recent months and whatnot.
You're pretty damn braindead yourself if you think that you'd want to be anywhere near people that are saying those kinds of things about you.
So much for "respecting Terri's wishes."
Yeah, her parents needed to pack it in years ago, instead of remaining delusional about Terri's condition.
There IS a constitutional way of providing a check on the judiciary. It is impeachment.
PAD summed up my thoughts on this line pretty nicely. Up to and including the view you have of DeLay's prostate.
So, I say leave the judges in place and impeach Bush & DeLay.
These guys must being doing it (and dead on funny as hell) in days/weeks
South Park is done with CG, so they have, like in the past, been able to put together an entire episode in a matter of days.
I still remember the episode they did based on the Elias Gonzalez case, and being amazed that the episode aired 2-3 days after the boy was taken from his mother's relatives.
A lot of people seem to be missing the point that whether or not her feeding tube should have been taken out or not is a separate issue from the Bush administration utterly showing its ass on this one.
Many people on both sides of the "Life at all costs" vs "Quality of life" debate agree that the prez and congress should have kept their dirty little fingers out of it.
-Rex Hondo-
A lot of people seem to be missing the point that whether or not her feeding tube should have been taken out or not is a separate issue from the Bush administration utterly showing its ass on this one.
Exactly. Whatever they're feelings on Terri Shiavo's condition in particular, a clear majority of Americans, as shown in at least three separate polls believe Congress should not have gotten involved.