I hate forwards. And I don't send them on to other people when I get them. But some are decent enough that I don't want to just delete them and never see them again. And since no one reads this anyway, it's safe to post them here, right?
What You Need To Believe To Be A Republican:
Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney and Rumsfeld did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush couldn't find Bin Laden.
Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals, Arabs, and Hillary Clinton.
Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle and antagonize our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism; HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.
Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's and Dick Cheney's driving records are none of our business.
Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
Supporting "Executive Privilege" is imperative for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity).
What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.
There's nothing wrong with supporting drunken hunters who shoot their friends and blaming the friends for looking too much like quail.
Let's not get stuck with more Republicans in '06 and '08: Friends don't let friends vote Republican!
Friday, March 31, 2006
This article strikes me as important. It feels like a corner is being turned, and I don't think it's a good road we're taking. By all means, read the full article yourself, but here a couple things that I pulled out.
1) " U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conceded Friday that the United States probably has made thousands of 'tactical errors' in Iraq and elsewhere".
I've never heard that sort of admission before. Is that a new stance? I'm more than a little curious now to see if that statement is ever repeated in the U.S.
2) "...but said it will be judged by its larger aims of peace and democracy in the Middle East."
Is this the "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet" argument? I thought that speech was reserved for idealogical villians.
3) "Rice replied that leaders would be "brain-dead" if they did not absorb the lessons of their times."
That doesn't even really need comment, does it?
4) "But when you look back in history, what will be judged will be, did you make the right strategic decisions."
Something about that statement just gives me the shivers. Partly that it's the break some eggs to make an omelet thing again. But on a bigger scale, the notion that you can't be judged by your peers but only by the long lense of history is disturbing. It can be used to justify just about anything. It's a mindset adopted by some of the worst individuals that the human cesspool has ever birthed.
5) "She said she remains firmly convinced that it was the right strategic decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq three years ago, and that it required an invasion to do it. Saddam 'wasn't going anywhere without military intervention,' she said."
Really? I looked back over some of the speeches from that time, and I know that the speeches that we the public received are different than the ones given on the senate floors, or behind closed doors, but I couldn't find anything about going into Iraq to remove Suddam. I found references to the notion that an invasion was NOT inevitable as long as Suddam cooperated with inspectors. I found the "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" quote at least twice.
6) "'People have the right to protest. That's what democracy is all about,' Rice told reporters at a British aerospace plant. 'I would say to those who wish to protest, by all means.'."
As long as we don't do it too loudly, and as long as it we keep it within the "free speech zones", nowhere near a political rally, and not within view of the current administration. And I think Denise Grier would find that comment interesting (go ahead and google her)
Anti-war demonstrations greet Rice during visit to Britain
Anne Gearan
Canadian Press
Friday, March 31, 2006
BLACKBURN, England (AP) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conceded Friday that the United States probably has made thousands of "tactical errors" in Iraq and elsewhere, but said it will be judged by its larger aims of peace and democracy in the Middle East.
The U.S. diplomat met loud anti-war protests in the streets and skeptical questions about U.S. involvement in Iraq at a foreign policy salon Friday, including one about whether Washington had learned from its "mistakes over the past three years."
Rice replied that leaders would be "brain-dead" if they did not absorb the lessons of their times.
"I know we've made tactical errors, thousands of them I'm sure," Rice told an audience gathered by the British foreign policy think tank Chatham House. "But when you look back in history, what will be judged will be, did you make the right strategic decisions."
She said she remains firmly convinced that it was the right strategic decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq three years ago, and that it required an invasion to do it.
Saddam "wasn't going anywhere without military intervention," she said.
Demonstrators organized marches to call America's top diplomat a war criminal and human-rights abuser as she joined British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on a tour of his adopted northern England working-class home.
Rice said she was not surprised by the depth of opposition in Britain, President Bush's strongest ally in Iraq, to the war and other American policies.
"I've seen it in every city I've visited in the United States," Rice said earlier Friday. "People have strong views."
"People have the right to protest. That's what democracy is all about," Rice told reporters at a British aerospace plant. "I would say to those who wish to protest, by all means."
Rice also said the United States was ready to send humanitarian assistance to Iran following deadly earthquakes there on Friday, but she made it clear there would be no accompanying U.S. diplomatic overture to Tehran.
Straw, Rice's host for her two-day visit, said Britain would send a condolence letter to the Tehran government.
The United States has no diplomatic relations with Iran.
At a high school visited by Rice and Straw, about 200 protesters stood across the street with banners and signs, chanting "Condoleezza Rice, Go Home!" One demonstrator held a yellow hand-lettered sign that read, How Many Lives Per Gallon?
Rice toured a high-school math class and visited Ewood Park, the home stadium of Straw's favoured soccer team, Blackburn Rovers.
About 50 of Pleckgate School's students "skived off" their classes Friday to protest Rice's visit, said student Jabbar Khan, 16, who shook Rice's hand as she entered.
The protests awaiting Rice on Friday were the reverse of the warm reception she received last fall when Straw accompanied her on a down-home tour of her native Alabama. Then, elderly white women lined up to shake the hand of a black native daughter made good, football fans cheered and the tantalizing possibility of a run for president - something she discounts - surrounded Rice.
"It's one thing to say this is a cultural visit, but others see it as a council of war," said Carmel Brown, an anti-war protester in Liverpool.
Rice's planned visit to a mosque in Blackburn was cancelled Thursday after anti-war protesters planned to heckle her during prayer time, a mosque leader said. A prominent poet and actress pulled out of planned appearances at a Liverpool Philharmonic concert Rice was attending Friday in protest of U.S. policies.
Straw's Blackburn district has the country's third highest Muslim population. Rice also is to meet Muslim leaders and the town's mayor, Ugandan immigrant Yusuf Jan-Virmani, on Saturday.
Straw's visit to Alabama was intended to show a different side of America to a visiting foreign leader and friend. Many people he met in Alabama, and a few who introduced him at events, had never heard of the British diplomat.
Rice is far better known, as the two days of protests planned over U.S. policies in Iraq, Iran and the war on terrorism attest.
Opponents of the Iraq war set up a website, condiwatch.co.uk, that listed times and locations for marches and gatherings. Protesters planned to distribute T-shirts that read, "Fab Four, Not War," in reference to Liverpool's most famous export, The Beatles.
The Canadian Press 2006
Copyright 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
1) " U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conceded Friday that the United States probably has made thousands of 'tactical errors' in Iraq and elsewhere".
I've never heard that sort of admission before. Is that a new stance? I'm more than a little curious now to see if that statement is ever repeated in the U.S.
2) "...but said it will be judged by its larger aims of peace and democracy in the Middle East."
Is this the "you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet" argument? I thought that speech was reserved for idealogical villians.
3) "Rice replied that leaders would be "brain-dead" if they did not absorb the lessons of their times."
That doesn't even really need comment, does it?
4) "But when you look back in history, what will be judged will be, did you make the right strategic decisions."
Something about that statement just gives me the shivers. Partly that it's the break some eggs to make an omelet thing again. But on a bigger scale, the notion that you can't be judged by your peers but only by the long lense of history is disturbing. It can be used to justify just about anything. It's a mindset adopted by some of the worst individuals that the human cesspool has ever birthed.
5) "She said she remains firmly convinced that it was the right strategic decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq three years ago, and that it required an invasion to do it. Saddam 'wasn't going anywhere without military intervention,' she said."
Really? I looked back over some of the speeches from that time, and I know that the speeches that we the public received are different than the ones given on the senate floors, or behind closed doors, but I couldn't find anything about going into Iraq to remove Suddam. I found references to the notion that an invasion was NOT inevitable as long as Suddam cooperated with inspectors. I found the "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" quote at least twice.
6) "'People have the right to protest. That's what democracy is all about,' Rice told reporters at a British aerospace plant. 'I would say to those who wish to protest, by all means.'."
As long as we don't do it too loudly, and as long as it we keep it within the "free speech zones", nowhere near a political rally, and not within view of the current administration. And I think Denise Grier would find that comment interesting (go ahead and google her)
Anti-war demonstrations greet Rice during visit to Britain
Anne Gearan
Canadian Press
Friday, March 31, 2006
BLACKBURN, England (AP) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conceded Friday that the United States probably has made thousands of "tactical errors" in Iraq and elsewhere, but said it will be judged by its larger aims of peace and democracy in the Middle East.
The U.S. diplomat met loud anti-war protests in the streets and skeptical questions about U.S. involvement in Iraq at a foreign policy salon Friday, including one about whether Washington had learned from its "mistakes over the past three years."
Rice replied that leaders would be "brain-dead" if they did not absorb the lessons of their times.
"I know we've made tactical errors, thousands of them I'm sure," Rice told an audience gathered by the British foreign policy think tank Chatham House. "But when you look back in history, what will be judged will be, did you make the right strategic decisions."
She said she remains firmly convinced that it was the right strategic decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq three years ago, and that it required an invasion to do it.
Saddam "wasn't going anywhere without military intervention," she said.
Demonstrators organized marches to call America's top diplomat a war criminal and human-rights abuser as she joined British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on a tour of his adopted northern England working-class home.
Rice said she was not surprised by the depth of opposition in Britain, President Bush's strongest ally in Iraq, to the war and other American policies.
"I've seen it in every city I've visited in the United States," Rice said earlier Friday. "People have strong views."
"People have the right to protest. That's what democracy is all about," Rice told reporters at a British aerospace plant. "I would say to those who wish to protest, by all means."
Rice also said the United States was ready to send humanitarian assistance to Iran following deadly earthquakes there on Friday, but she made it clear there would be no accompanying U.S. diplomatic overture to Tehran.
Straw, Rice's host for her two-day visit, said Britain would send a condolence letter to the Tehran government.
The United States has no diplomatic relations with Iran.
At a high school visited by Rice and Straw, about 200 protesters stood across the street with banners and signs, chanting "Condoleezza Rice, Go Home!" One demonstrator held a yellow hand-lettered sign that read, How Many Lives Per Gallon?
Rice toured a high-school math class and visited Ewood Park, the home stadium of Straw's favoured soccer team, Blackburn Rovers.
About 50 of Pleckgate School's students "skived off" their classes Friday to protest Rice's visit, said student Jabbar Khan, 16, who shook Rice's hand as she entered.
The protests awaiting Rice on Friday were the reverse of the warm reception she received last fall when Straw accompanied her on a down-home tour of her native Alabama. Then, elderly white women lined up to shake the hand of a black native daughter made good, football fans cheered and the tantalizing possibility of a run for president - something she discounts - surrounded Rice.
"It's one thing to say this is a cultural visit, but others see it as a council of war," said Carmel Brown, an anti-war protester in Liverpool.
Rice's planned visit to a mosque in Blackburn was cancelled Thursday after anti-war protesters planned to heckle her during prayer time, a mosque leader said. A prominent poet and actress pulled out of planned appearances at a Liverpool Philharmonic concert Rice was attending Friday in protest of U.S. policies.
Straw's Blackburn district has the country's third highest Muslim population. Rice also is to meet Muslim leaders and the town's mayor, Ugandan immigrant Yusuf Jan-Virmani, on Saturday.
Straw's visit to Alabama was intended to show a different side of America to a visiting foreign leader and friend. Many people he met in Alabama, and a few who introduced him at events, had never heard of the British diplomat.
Rice is far better known, as the two days of protests planned over U.S. policies in Iraq, Iran and the war on terrorism attest.
Opponents of the Iraq war set up a website, condiwatch.co.uk, that listed times and locations for marches and gatherings. Protesters planned to distribute T-shirts that read, "Fab Four, Not War," in reference to Liverpool's most famous export, The Beatles.
The Canadian Press 2006
Copyright 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest MediaWorks Publications, Inc.. All rights reserved.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Get on Herb
Both Sarah and I have written to Herb Kohl.
He needs to feel some pressure right now.
Here's Sarah's letter,
Dear Senator Kohl,
I wanted to let you know that I am disappointed that you are not backing Senator Feingold on his call to censure President Bush. I have voted for you in the past, but I don't feel that I can again unless I fell that you are representing the people on this matter. It seems obvious that the President broke a law, and he should be held responsible. I am not talking about an impeachment or an attempt to take him out of office, simply the censure that Senator Feingold called for.
It seems fair, and from all I have heard from my fellow Wisconsinites, it is what the people want. Please stand behind Senator Feingold and the people of Wisconsin and this country. I would be happy to continue to give you my vote if I feel that you are listening to your constituents. Thank you for your time and consideration,
Sarah
Here's mine
Dear Senator Kohl,
As a constituent I would ask that you please support the call to censure President Bush. I find it disturbing that on this issue the opinion of the public can be so overwhelmingly in favor of censure, and yet you have not represented this desire fairly.
In the past I have felt that your voting record has not matched the general desires of your constituency.
For me, this is the deal breaker. If the people of Wisconsin are sending a clear message that they want to see the President Censured, and yet you do not back this move, I will not be able to vote for you in the coming elections.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Christopher
You can write him online at http://kohl.senate.gov/
Sunday, November 13, 2005
An interesting quote....
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders
of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple
matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or
no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and
exposing the country to greater danger."
-The Nazi Herman Goering
at the Nuremberg trials
of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple
matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or
no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and
exposing the country to greater danger."
-The Nazi Herman Goering
at the Nuremberg trials
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
I've got nothing....
I’d like to say that unlike the rest of our frenzied nation I don’t have an opinion on the Terri Schiavo case. But it’d be a lie. I do have an opinion. I just don’t have an answer.
I don’t know what should be done.
And I’m fine with that.
I’m neither a medical expert, nor someone who knew her intimately.
She never confided in me, I’ve never seen a case like hers, I don’t know what her vitals are.
I didn't visit her in the hospital, or watch a tape of it.
and I’ve never stayed awake all night talking to her exchanging our dreams, hopes and fears until the morning sun pushes back the dark.
Failing all of those qualifications, I have no business making any decision, much less one that will result in her life, or death, or something that is neither.
I’m 29 years old.
I don’t think I’ll ever die.
I am that one unique individual who will slip through deaths bony fingers, and I will live forever.
Or, I could die on my way into work tomorrow. Leaving behind a wife and daughter, an unwritten novel, a pile of books beside my bed, very little money in the bank and a world that I’ve just barely begun to glimpse.
I just don’t know. I could be paralyzed, struck with a crippling disease, in a vegetative state, or I could live to be 110.
I talk about these things with my wife now and then. Not often, we’ve got better things to talk about. And I’ve never written anything down. But if I was ever in that state I would want my wife to decide what happens to me.
I would hang around for a bit, until she was ready. Maybe a year, or a few years, maybe ten or fifteen years, until she worked out a way to move on without me. And then I’d leave.
Having no answer, and no opinion even to start with, I tried to do some research. At the end of the day I still don’t have an answer, and only a poor excuse for an opinion. But here’s what I found, maybe it will help you.
Terri Shiavo is in a vegetative state. This isn’t an opinion, it’s the diagnosis of medical experts. Tom Delay is not one of those medical experts, but he has an opinion.
“Terri Schiavo is alive. She's not, 'just barely alive.' She's not, 'being kept alive.' She is as alive as you and I," DeLay said, "and, as such, we have a moral obligation to protect and defend her from the fate premeditated by the Florida courts."
http://www.discardedlies.com/entries/2005/03/tom_delay_terri_will_not_be_forsaken.php
I agree with Tom Delay.
Sort of.
As long as he speaks for himself and not me when he says “She is as alive as you and I.”
One thing I found in my research (small tangent, sorry) is that Tom Delay is scum. After what I’ve read I signed a petition for his resignation (http://www.pcactionfund.org/index.htm). And yes, I read articles in his defense too. Don’t take my word for it. Read for yourself.
http://www.opednews.com/wade_032005_delay_schiavo.htm
http://dailydelay.blogspot.com/
-Sucuumbing to tempation, here’s one icky thing Tom Delay has done
“Tom DeLay received all expenses-paid junket from a lobbyist accused of bilking tens of millions of dollars from six Native American tribes.
• Lobbyist Jack Abramoff arranged for an Indian tribe and a gambling services company to contribute to the Washington-based National Center for Public Policy Research, which in turn covered most of the cost of a $70,000 trip to Britain by DeLay, his wife, and several others in mid-2000. DeLay listed the purpose of the trip as “educational”—he spent time networking with conservative British politicians and playing golf at the famous St. Andrews golf course in Scotland. “To the casual observer, it was a pretty simple deal,” a former House leadership aide told the Journal, after being shown details of the London transaction. “Jack raised money for the pet projects of DeLay and took care of his top staff. In turn, they granted him tremendous access and allowed him to freely trade on DeLay’s name.” Two months after the trip, DeLay helped kill the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, which would have made it illegal to use the Internet to place certain bets. Abramoff is under investigation for taking huge fees from six Indian tribes and delivering little in return. Emails between a former DeLay aide and Abramoff refer to their Indian clients as “monkeys,” “morons,” and “troglodytes.”(Raw Story, 2/28/05; National Journal, 2/26/05; The Washington Post, 03/12/05; USA Today,11/30/04)” -
The republicans in the house have propped up their invasive rhetoric with supposed moral pillars. But recently talking points circulated amongst the republicans on the floor of the senate have surfaced. It seems to me that they show that this is just more political leverage. But you should read these too, and decide for yourself.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Schiavo/story?id=600937
My favorite is “This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.”
Here is a conservative article defending the republican moral high ground and insisting that the democrats politicize the issue.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0321/p01s03-uspo.html
On Terri’s responsiveness:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri's condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature."Affirming those decisions, the Second District explained that it, too, reviewed the videotapes of Terri in their entirety as well as Terri's brain scans. The appellate court explained that it not only affirmed the decision but that, were it to review the evidence and make its own decision, the court would reach the same result reached by the trial court.
http://journals.aol.com/justice1949/JUSTICEFORTERRISCHIAVO/entries/713
Of all the expert opinions I found, that all agreed that there is no chance of recovery. They didn’t say a slim chance, or a slight chance. They said no chance. “Schiavo recovery impossible, experts agree”
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7257835/
A much as this is being made into a right-wing vs. left-wing issue, there are dissenting views on both sides. I ran into this liberal blog arguing that she should be kept alive. It’s a narrow blog though, the only issue it discusses is the Terri Schiavo case, and if it’s name is any indication it was created just for that purpose.
"Ask yourself: What if your spouse had abused you, injured you by strangulation or head trauma, then driven you to the hospital and demanded 'your' right to die? What if the only evidence presented to the court that you 'wanted to die' was hearsay testimony from the same spouse that materialized only after they got your $1.5+ million settlement? What if they spent $500,000 of that settlement money not on you, but on a prominent euthanasia attorney they hired specifically to lobby for 'your' right to 'die'? "
http://liberalsforterri.blogspot.com/
And what does the rest of the world think? The BBC collected opinions on their website. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3203921.stm
They are varied, and opinions are strong, but they seem to lean more towards letting her die.
Some insist that Terri’s husband has her insurance settlement in mind
“'Now, he has had her feeding tube removed and sentenced her to a most excruciating death, citing Terri's own wishes as the rationale ...' said Rep. Jim Ryun, R-Kan. 'Michael did not remember this supposed request until years after Terri's initial injuries when a cash settlement was awarded to her, a settlement he would stand to inherit.'"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/21/national/main681832.shtml
I did find on at least a couple sources that he is living with another woman, and has 2 children. But I couldn’t find for how long, or how old the children are. Terri has been in a coma for 15 years (since 1990).
“Both sides have accused each other of being motivated by greed over a $1 million medical malpractice award from doctors who failed to diagnose the chemical imbalance that caused Terri Schiavo to stop breathing. However, that money, which Michael Schiavo received in 1993, has all but evaporated - spent on his wife's care and the court fight. Just $40,000 to $50,000 remained as of mid-March.
Michael Schiavo has a longtime girlfriend with whom he has young children but has declined to divorce his wife. He and his wife's parents had a falling out in 1993 over Terri Schiavo's care and the malpractice money. The Schindlers tried unsuccessfully to have Michael Schiavo removed as her guardian.”
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Brain%20Damaged%20Woman%20Q~A
Maybe it’s the hypocrisy that gets to me most. The republicans are supposed to stand for smaller government. Less interference, more personal liberty. Less big government in your lives. More power at the state level, and power that is less centralized. That’s what they are “supposed” to stand for.
And yet this seems a clear case of the federal goverment not only interfering in people personal lives, but trying to overturn a decision at the state level as well.
"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay pledged Friday to hold Florida state judge George Greer in contempt of Congress for ignoring a congressional subpoena for Terri Schiavo's testimony, saying, 'We will do everything to enforce the power and authority of the Congress and no little judge sitting in a state district court in Florida is going to usurp the authority of Congress,' he added."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/18/181719.shtml
DeLay also told Hannity, "This judge and the Supreme Court of Florida are well known to be liberal judges that have a different worldview and they're imposing their worldview on the law."
But that’s nothing compared to Bush’s hypocrisy.
“Thomas Mayo, an associate law professor at Southern Methodist University who helped draft the Texas law, said that if the Schiavo case had happened in Texas, her husband would have been her surrogate decision-maker. Because both he and her doctors were in agreement, life support would have been discontinued.
The Texas law does not include a provision for dealing with conflicts among family members who disagree with the surrogate decision-maker as has happened in the Schiavo case although in practice hospital ethics committees would try to resolve such disputes, he said.
The Texas law, Mayo said, tends to keep such cases out of court, allowing life-support decisions to be made privately. However, within the last month two Houston cases went to court. One case resulted in a baby being removed from life support; he died soon afterward. The other led to the transfer of an elderly man to a nursing home.
Bruce Howell, a private health law attorney in Dallas who was involved in updates to the state law in 2003, agreed with Mayo that Bush's signing of the federal law appears to be inconsistent with his actions as governor.” http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=601938&page=1
Bush signed 1999 law in TX to pull plug on patient AGAINST the family's wishes by John in DC - 3/21/2005 06:42:00 PM
http://americablog.blogspot.com/
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=480
I don’t know what should be done.
And I’m fine with that.
I’m neither a medical expert, nor someone who knew her intimately.
She never confided in me, I’ve never seen a case like hers, I don’t know what her vitals are.
I didn't visit her in the hospital, or watch a tape of it.
and I’ve never stayed awake all night talking to her exchanging our dreams, hopes and fears until the morning sun pushes back the dark.
Failing all of those qualifications, I have no business making any decision, much less one that will result in her life, or death, or something that is neither.
I’m 29 years old.
I don’t think I’ll ever die.
I am that one unique individual who will slip through deaths bony fingers, and I will live forever.
Or, I could die on my way into work tomorrow. Leaving behind a wife and daughter, an unwritten novel, a pile of books beside my bed, very little money in the bank and a world that I’ve just barely begun to glimpse.
I just don’t know. I could be paralyzed, struck with a crippling disease, in a vegetative state, or I could live to be 110.
I talk about these things with my wife now and then. Not often, we’ve got better things to talk about. And I’ve never written anything down. But if I was ever in that state I would want my wife to decide what happens to me.
I would hang around for a bit, until she was ready. Maybe a year, or a few years, maybe ten or fifteen years, until she worked out a way to move on without me. And then I’d leave.
Having no answer, and no opinion even to start with, I tried to do some research. At the end of the day I still don’t have an answer, and only a poor excuse for an opinion. But here’s what I found, maybe it will help you.
Terri Shiavo is in a vegetative state. This isn’t an opinion, it’s the diagnosis of medical experts. Tom Delay is not one of those medical experts, but he has an opinion.
“Terri Schiavo is alive. She's not, 'just barely alive.' She's not, 'being kept alive.' She is as alive as you and I," DeLay said, "and, as such, we have a moral obligation to protect and defend her from the fate premeditated by the Florida courts."
http://www.discardedlies.com/entries/2005/03/tom_delay_terri_will_not_be_forsaken.php
I agree with Tom Delay.
Sort of.
As long as he speaks for himself and not me when he says “She is as alive as you and I.”
One thing I found in my research (small tangent, sorry) is that Tom Delay is scum. After what I’ve read I signed a petition for his resignation (http://www.pcactionfund.org/index.htm). And yes, I read articles in his defense too. Don’t take my word for it. Read for yourself.
http://www.opednews.com/wade_032005_delay_schiavo.htm
http://dailydelay.blogspot.com/
-Sucuumbing to tempation, here’s one icky thing Tom Delay has done
“Tom DeLay received all expenses-paid junket from a lobbyist accused of bilking tens of millions of dollars from six Native American tribes.
• Lobbyist Jack Abramoff arranged for an Indian tribe and a gambling services company to contribute to the Washington-based National Center for Public Policy Research, which in turn covered most of the cost of a $70,000 trip to Britain by DeLay, his wife, and several others in mid-2000. DeLay listed the purpose of the trip as “educational”—he spent time networking with conservative British politicians and playing golf at the famous St. Andrews golf course in Scotland. “To the casual observer, it was a pretty simple deal,” a former House leadership aide told the Journal, after being shown details of the London transaction. “Jack raised money for the pet projects of DeLay and took care of his top staff. In turn, they granted him tremendous access and allowed him to freely trade on DeLay’s name.” Two months after the trip, DeLay helped kill the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, which would have made it illegal to use the Internet to place certain bets. Abramoff is under investigation for taking huge fees from six Indian tribes and delivering little in return. Emails between a former DeLay aide and Abramoff refer to their Indian clients as “monkeys,” “morons,” and “troglodytes.”(Raw Story, 2/28/05; National Journal, 2/26/05; The Washington Post, 03/12/05; USA Today,11/30/04)” -
The republicans in the house have propped up their invasive rhetoric with supposed moral pillars. But recently talking points circulated amongst the republicans on the floor of the senate have surfaced. It seems to me that they show that this is just more political leverage. But you should read these too, and decide for yourself.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Schiavo/story?id=600937
My favorite is “This is a great political issue, because Senator Nelson of Florida has already refused to become a cosponsor and this is a tough issue for Democrats.”
Here is a conservative article defending the republican moral high ground and insisting that the democrats politicize the issue.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0321/p01s03-uspo.html
On Terri’s responsiveness:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri's condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature."Affirming those decisions, the Second District explained that it, too, reviewed the videotapes of Terri in their entirety as well as Terri's brain scans. The appellate court explained that it not only affirmed the decision but that, were it to review the evidence and make its own decision, the court would reach the same result reached by the trial court.
http://journals.aol.com/justice1949/JUSTICEFORTERRISCHIAVO/entries/713
Of all the expert opinions I found, that all agreed that there is no chance of recovery. They didn’t say a slim chance, or a slight chance. They said no chance. “Schiavo recovery impossible, experts agree”
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7257835/
A much as this is being made into a right-wing vs. left-wing issue, there are dissenting views on both sides. I ran into this liberal blog arguing that she should be kept alive. It’s a narrow blog though, the only issue it discusses is the Terri Schiavo case, and if it’s name is any indication it was created just for that purpose.
"Ask yourself: What if your spouse had abused you, injured you by strangulation or head trauma, then driven you to the hospital and demanded 'your' right to die? What if the only evidence presented to the court that you 'wanted to die' was hearsay testimony from the same spouse that materialized only after they got your $1.5+ million settlement? What if they spent $500,000 of that settlement money not on you, but on a prominent euthanasia attorney they hired specifically to lobby for 'your' right to 'die'? "
http://liberalsforterri.blogspot.com/
And what does the rest of the world think? The BBC collected opinions on their website. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3203921.stm
They are varied, and opinions are strong, but they seem to lean more towards letting her die.
Some insist that Terri’s husband has her insurance settlement in mind
“'Now, he has had her feeding tube removed and sentenced her to a most excruciating death, citing Terri's own wishes as the rationale ...' said Rep. Jim Ryun, R-Kan. 'Michael did not remember this supposed request until years after Terri's initial injuries when a cash settlement was awarded to her, a settlement he would stand to inherit.'"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/21/national/main681832.shtml
I did find on at least a couple sources that he is living with another woman, and has 2 children. But I couldn’t find for how long, or how old the children are. Terri has been in a coma for 15 years (since 1990).
“Both sides have accused each other of being motivated by greed over a $1 million medical malpractice award from doctors who failed to diagnose the chemical imbalance that caused Terri Schiavo to stop breathing. However, that money, which Michael Schiavo received in 1993, has all but evaporated - spent on his wife's care and the court fight. Just $40,000 to $50,000 remained as of mid-March.
Michael Schiavo has a longtime girlfriend with whom he has young children but has declined to divorce his wife. He and his wife's parents had a falling out in 1993 over Terri Schiavo's care and the malpractice money. The Schindlers tried unsuccessfully to have Michael Schiavo removed as her guardian.”
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Brain%20Damaged%20Woman%20Q~A
Maybe it’s the hypocrisy that gets to me most. The republicans are supposed to stand for smaller government. Less interference, more personal liberty. Less big government in your lives. More power at the state level, and power that is less centralized. That’s what they are “supposed” to stand for.
And yet this seems a clear case of the federal goverment not only interfering in people personal lives, but trying to overturn a decision at the state level as well.
"House Majority Leader Tom DeLay pledged Friday to hold Florida state judge George Greer in contempt of Congress for ignoring a congressional subpoena for Terri Schiavo's testimony, saying, 'We will do everything to enforce the power and authority of the Congress and no little judge sitting in a state district court in Florida is going to usurp the authority of Congress,' he added."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/18/181719.shtml
DeLay also told Hannity, "This judge and the Supreme Court of Florida are well known to be liberal judges that have a different worldview and they're imposing their worldview on the law."
So because this is a democratic judge his decision doesn' count? Does that make any sense? To anyone?
But that’s nothing compared to Bush’s hypocrisy.
They woke him up at 1:11 AM, he signed the bill in the hall outside his private quarters. This is his thing. He’s for life. He’s going to help the helpless, his is a culture of life.
But wait.
This culture of life mentality seem to be at odds with his past and current actions. His slashing of medicaid will result in thousands of deaths, cutting aid for the poor and hungry. Startin a war, on any premise, is going to result in death, not life. But more specificly, take a look at the “Texas Futile Care Law” that he passed as governor of Texas.
"Bioethicists familiar with the Texas law said yesterday that if the Schiavo case had occurred in Texas, her husband would be the legal decision-maker and, because he and her doctors agreed that she had no hope of recovery, her feeding tube would be disconnected. "The Texas law signed in 1999 allowed next of kin to decide what the patient wanted, if competent," said John Robertson, a University of Texas bioethicist. While Congress and the White House were considering legislation recently in the Schiavo case, the Texas law faced its first high-profile test. With the permission of a judge, a Houston hospital cut off life support for a badly deformed 6-month-old baby last week against his mother's wishes after doctors determined that continuing life support would be futile. The baby died almost immediately. "The mother down in Texas must be reading the Schiavo case and scratching her head," said Dr. Howard Brody, the director of Michigan State University's Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences. "This does appear to be a contradiction."
This law says that when a family can't pay the hospital
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002215324_texaslaw22.html
“George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week.”
“Thomas Mayo, an associate law professor at Southern Methodist University who helped draft the Texas law, said that if the Schiavo case had happened in Texas, her husband would have been her surrogate decision-maker. Because both he and her doctors were in agreement, life support would have been discontinued.
The Texas law does not include a provision for dealing with conflicts among family members who disagree with the surrogate decision-maker as has happened in the Schiavo case although in practice hospital ethics committees would try to resolve such disputes, he said.
The Texas law, Mayo said, tends to keep such cases out of court, allowing life-support decisions to be made privately. However, within the last month two Houston cases went to court. One case resulted in a baby being removed from life support; he died soon afterward. The other led to the transfer of an elderly man to a nursing home.
Bruce Howell, a private health law attorney in Dallas who was involved in updates to the state law in 2003, agreed with Mayo that Bush's signing of the federal law appears to be inconsistent with his actions as governor.” http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=601938&page=1
Bush signed 1999 law in TX to pull plug on patient AGAINST the family's wishes by John in DC - 3/21/2005 06:42:00 PM
http://americablog.blogspot.com/
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=480
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
