It's a great idea... and thought of by a TRUE liberal, as far as I am concerned. We "libs" are supposed to have a heart and protect the weak and oppressed, not MURDER THEM.

I cannot believe the same people who demonstrate at the executions of murderers are either staying silent, or outright advocating Terri's husband's supposed, "right" to have her MURDERED slowly and torturously!

Come on, fellow "libs"! Speak up!

God Bless...

Sounds like a plan.

It is a good idea, but like most expressions of outrage, I don't know that many will follow through. I was at the hospice today, there were about 50 people there. That's it. Fifty.

take a look at www.impeachjudgegreer.com

ACE -

Florida and a majority of other states classify the surgery & fitting of a patient with a gastric tube and feeding machine to prolong vegetative existence as artificial life support.

Rather than have to admit Oliver Willis is in critical condition, recognize that forced feeding and hydration is the exception and not the rule in vegetative patients. I think you are still wrapped up emotionally in the idea of "starving to death" or "lingering agonizing dehydration" being horrific, but as the below quote makes clear, the vast majority of deaths 80% are in institutional settings in America and 80% of those involve diminished care and 70% of those decisions are made involving people that have "diminished brain functions, fallen into a coma, or who have become vegetative."

Drawing on statistics from the American Medical Association, Mayo said many families will face similarly difficult choices - even if they do not end up in the public limelight.

He noted that 80 percent of deaths occur in institutional settings like hospitals and 80 percent of those result after decisions are made to in some way limit care. And he said up to 70 percent of deaths occur when patients have diminished brain functions, having fallen into comas or become vegetative. Legal and medical experts said rulings from previous cases have made the law clear, giving guardianship to the spouse.

Mayo said Texas has one of the most progressive laws, which provides a procedure for physicians to consult with a hospital's ethics committee and remove life support when there is a family disagreement.

"We make these decisions at our hospitals all the time," Fine said. "We invest a lot of time and effort to help good families who sometimes simply see the world differently."

Mayo said those conflicts rarely go to court, as resolutions are usually found with family members through the intervention of doctors and medical ethics experts at hospitals.

"You often see families who disagree, but you do not see families that go to battle for 15 years," Mayo said.

Besides, given the God-flavor of the most vehement protestors....well, 7 were arrested today for trying to get her water and bread of the eucharist blessed by a priest.

Brewfan:

I think your job of discipling this moonbat is going to be nearly impossible.

Christians trying to give the woman what they believe to be the body and blood of Christ--7 of them, mind you, an army of rosary-wielding monsters--are now vehement protestors. Imagine that? I'm having a hard time comparing people praying and carrying out their faith (the woman is Christian) to the raging freaks in NYC during the RNC Convention screaming their lungs out calling Bush a murder, a Nazi, and calling for his death.

The guy who shot the abortion clinic doctor in Florida is a violent right wing radical. People praying and trying to give a Sacrament to a Christian are not vehement radicals, they are people of faith.

Ace: Keep this guy around as long as you possibly can. He's pure comic gold.

Brewfan: Cedartista has offered up another chance for you to pull out your pea shooter and fire at the fish in a barrel. Well, what are you waiting for?

KCT,

I'm dissappointed! In referencing the troll you forgot to add the following:

Cedartista (w,btw,iacs).

I know you know what the letters stand for. Think James Taranto.....

I think we should just send Ted Kennedy a six pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon and maybe a Ham sandwich to Nancy Pelosi. That bitch dont look like she ate nuthin since Carter left the white house. Thats about the only way we're gonna get Democratic support.

Jack M:

Sorry, but while you've been away living your life (sorry, I have none, I spend it here), we had a short pause in the name calling when a kind doctor (a healer, a saver of life, a preserver of life) questioned why there are those such as us that take potshots at the Cedartista*.

There was actually a narrow slice of time wherein the man tried to put some words behind his theories in an attempt to make sense. Then, after a brief period, things devolved again when he lugged into the conversation the usual conspiracy-theory shit. Just like this post. Then it was back to the usual I'm-right-you're-wrong-and-you-are-dense-because-you-won't-agree crap.

So the good doctor provided some insight, corrected Cedartista* on his framing of one of his issues, and even Brewfan tried to give Cedartista* some rebuttal.

But you are correct, at this post, the good Cedartista* should be given his due. And I was remiss.

*who, by the way, is a cocksucker.

Cedarford do you actually think that 80% of the people who die in hospitals, die because their feeding tubes are removed? Im pretty sure most of that 80% are people who are removed from respirators. Dying from lack of air in a couple of minutes is one thing. Starving for days on end is another. Go dig up some more facts and see which one of us is right. im too lazy.

Dear Blank:

A six pack? For good old Teddy? I think you're underestimating his daily intake needs. Try a case, plus a fifth of gin.

And Pelosi, a ham sandwich? You must be kidding. Try two cases of Smores or Thin Mints and an entire ham. Daily. That'd get her back to normal weight in about three months.

But soberly, I like your idea. It has merit. But the only thing is, since those two yammers view charity as something the Government performs, sending them such things for free would have to be called a bribe or something for them to accept it. If you called it a "donation" they wouldn't understand what the fuck to do with it. They'd walk around asking, "What the hell is a donation? What compells people to send free stuff for my benefit for nothing in return? Perhaps I should tax the person that sent this?" Then the IRS would be after you.

Dear Blank:

Of course Cedartista* believes that. He's quite good at throwing out statistics without explaining how they buttress his threadbare arguments. He just tosses them out and then goes from those to the conclusion; which you have to buy, hook, line and sinker, or you're unenlightened.

And your request for him to go look up statistics will simply elicit a kick in the pants, followed by some conspiracy theory that he asserts as true and accuses you of buying into it.

*who, by the way, is a cock sucker.

Cedarford,
The Judge's ruling also includes a prohibition on attempting oral feeding and hydrating. Which would _not_ be artificial life support.

cedarford,

Step two on the road to salvation is acknowledging Jesus as your savior. You see, his death on the cross was an atoning act. Atoning for all of our sins. Did you know that when he was on the cross he said "it is finished"? The greek word literally means 'paid in full'. So, no matter how despicable one might be, there is redemption in Christ. All you have to do is ask for it. In step 3 I'll share with you how to do that. Until then, good night.

"Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." --Exodus 22:19

"Cedarford Wept" --John 11:35

I am now quoting from my usually satirical blog:

I just finished saying that I had nothing original to add to this. Now I recant.

SOMEBODY WITH HALF A BRAIN BETTER GET A STATEMENT OUT OF HILLARY CLINTON AND FORCE HER TO TAKE A POSITION, BECAUSE IT WILL MATTER.

Thank you very much.

The Therapist

The Therapist:

Perfect idea.

Side note. You know, if you just hit the space bar in your name at the right spot, your name becomes "The The rapist." But I'd never make such a mistake. And this is all in jest. Please, I hope you take no offense.

Then the day is Mine, Trebek!

Andrea H:

What's up with the comments section on your fine Blog? I can't comment, even when I sign in. What gives? You've got a mighty fine set of posts there, and I'd like to comment about them.

Your input would be most appreciated.

Yes, Cedarford, but how many of those being treated needed a feeding tube AND NOTHING ELSE? You're acting like an eighty-year-old with advanced stomach cancer for whom digestion has become impossible, or someone with five different ailments whose organs are shutting down quickly and making it impossible to eat anyway are somehow equivalent to a fortyish severely retarded woman whose digestion is fine and whose body needs nothing to keep itself going but the daily dose through the tube. Obviously you're not going to be shoving a tube through the navel of someone who's in the last few days of colon cancer and to whom it would be a torture. This is different.

Sonetka:

Of course you're right. That's the thing here. You see, Cedartista's* arguments usually follow this similar pattern.

1) Start with a statement of opinion that is asserted as fact. Usually this is done assertively, rarely posited as an idea or thought.
2) Throw some statistics out to back up his garbage of a statement. [Note: Sometimes the statement asserted has some truth in it. But even if you acknowledge this, he won't give you props for it.]
3) Make comparisons that have little in common with the case at hand.
4) Rests his case.

Then, someone challenges him, which you've done masterfully. And then the logic failures start flooding the scene. Sometimes they are false dilemnas, other times they are arguments from the heap (also called slippery slopes), and sometimes there's no logic to even work with. Then a new cycle begins, if he's willing to come back and assert himself.

1) Call you stupid for missing the obvious clarity of his statistics-backed opinion posited as a truism.
2) Repeat the comparison that you've discredited, perhaps modified slightly but at its root is unchanged.
3) Throw in tangents that have little or no relation to the discussion at hand, but part of the next thing you get...
4) A conspiracy theory that ties everything together from his first opinion (truth in his mind) to some strange amalgam of Jews, neocons, right-to-lifers, Bible-thumpers, etc.
5) Calls you a retard or some other such thing for not having accepted his enlightening wisdom from the start.

Have fun! You've completely shown the fallacy in his statement, but it won't get you anywhere except back to where you started.

I'll say it again, what is past is prologue for Cedartista*.

*who, by the way, is a cock sucker.

KCTrio:

I just checked, and commenting is working ok. You have to have a registered ID at Typekey.com. Then you have to sign in through my site. I'm assuming you have tried all this. What happens after that is sometimes the redirect takes you back to the old page telling you to sign in, not the new one with the open comment box. In this case you have to refresh your browser window. (You might have to do a shift-refresh.) Also, if it's your first time commenting your first comment will be held in the moderation queue so it won't appear right away.

KCTRio - You don't add much info to any thread. You seem to think your arch form of snottiness makes you a star. That, my friend, is yet another definition for your life....cocksucking by words, not by deed.

Brewfan - I didn't ask for your religious proselytization activities directed at me and I doubt any other stranger appreciates your efforts to cram your faith down their throats. I have my religion. Keep your own fucking personal religion to yourself. Ordinarlily, I'd be more polite about unsolicited religious messages, but most of your posts here consist of playing the asshole and directing ad hominems at posters you disagree with.

Thank you for checking, Andrea. Yes, I have a registerd password with typekey, but I could get the comments to load. Perhaps my firewall setting for cookies needs to be taken down a notch. I'll give that a try. But again, thanks for following up.

Cedartista*: Nice, very nice. Keep it coming. I have never said anything about being a star or adding value to any thread. I leave that judgment to others.

You, on the other hand, are the definition of arrogance and snottiness. The doctor debunks your nonsense, and you continue to posit the same things as true. Keep it coming.

*who, by the way, is a cock sucker.

Sonetka -

Agree, the people that have feeding tubes are a small number of the end of life decisions the AMA said constitute some 80% of the total number of patients dying in institutions in America, where 80% of that number have some curtailed service or function that speeds death. But that small number is a significant part of the ending of long-term vegetatives - Alzheimers, PVS patients like Nancy Cruzan, Karen Ann Quinlan, Terri Schiavo.

Remember too that food and water is with held from terminal cancer patients and others dying of slow heart failure and degenerative diseases that lose all hunger and desire for water but still have a swallowing reflex.....a number far larger than the entubated ones.

The point being made was that the laws the Religious Right wish to have to Schiavo will have to either be thrown out or apply to all artificial life support methods....which affect 64% of people dying in America every year. (80%X80%).

If all end of life issues have to be decided in Federal Court, except those with a valid Living Will - 15% but Operation Rescue and other groups reject many as invalid....then you would have over a million people a year subject to Fed court decree before heroic measures could be ended. And given the long wait in Fed Court, you either de facto admit few people would be able to get that Court permission before dying with no relief from legally mandated resusitations or unwanted life support stretching the dying out...or you may have to create an entire new echelon of the Federal judiciary to hear end of life cases daily in almost every hospital.

It sounds highly unworkable to me. A potential major disruption of society generated by the religious right flexing it's muscles and certain politicans falling all over themselves to pander this time. And Schiavos case and feeding tube controversy is identical to the Nancy Cruzan case 15 years ago and up to 100,000 deaths initated by feeding tube removal and several million withdrawals of food and water initiated without the Religious Right getting itself in a holy lather over since 1990 that didn't involve entubations.

And if the Schiavo case is resolved in her favor as the Court sees it, guess what?? In a few more years the Religious Right will pick their next pretty white girl icon or totem as Nancy Cruzan, Katherine Quinlan, and Terri Schiavo were picked for PR value and we will be right back at this again.

Notice the Right to Lifers do not pick a black AIDs sufferer on a feeding tube or an entubated 89-year old Alzheimers patient - though they are a dime a dozen easy to find as their tubes get pulled by agreement with family or by the court if they have no family - as cause celebres`. For PR, RTL knows the value of pretty white female "victims".

***********************

And just as sure, people will forget we went through all this with their past proxies for all those thousands of others Operation Rescue omits to champion....it has to be personal, media attractive...get the masses all riled up over imaginary horrors and pump out misinformation on the case at the same time........"Oh the unspeakable horror of inflicting the most painful death imaginable on a pretty white girl! Starving her to Death. Wrinkling her prettiness up by horrific dehydration that Not Even The Nazis Used!! It was too cruel for even those beasts. Why, every spokesmen for the last one, Terri, said she was really perfectly fine and tried speaking every day before they murdered her. We can't let them murder another !!"

If Schiavo is allowed to die, give the Religious Right a few years and they'll be back with a new media darling. I predict the next vegetative woman they select will deviate from the white girl status quo - be a pretty Hispanic, to reach that market niche...unless a gorgeous blonde beauty queen loses most her brain in a car accident and goes PVS. I don't think the RTLs have had a pretty blonde icon yet. It also helps if the family is divided and has media charisma - heroes and villains we can embrace. And as attractive as a comely Hispanic vegetative would be, her familia better speak fluent English or it will be a no go....

Sorry, KCTrio...were you trying to write something on the thread topic? Were you trying to point me to a thread where you were actually original and thought provoking rather than your typical re-iterative self??

I give you credit, though.

Few people can type so - writing in a manner strangely parallel to how they would sound if they were trying to communicate by speaking with a cock in their mouth.

I did relish your "man on the scene report" . In sotto...."Hey, I'm KCTrio. I know all the people involved in the Schiavo case. Why, I could even introduce you to the lawyers and parties from both sides of it, I personally know. Yep, I've followed this case for years...

Ooooo, big KCTRio, I'm so impressed! Even more impressed by your reticence to show off an iota of real knowledge about that here. Must be your innate humility.

No, asshole, I didn't ssay I knew them personally. I just happen to live in the city where this story has unfolded and just happen to have read about it far longer than you.

How does me saying that I could introduce them to you imply that I know them intimately? I know both attorneys. I know friends of both families. That's enough in my opinion to get an introduction accomplished.

And your childish ranting has been pointed out by many more than me.

Again, check out your window, the black helicopters are coming.

Are you saying that the laws Congress is trying to pass apply to everyone in every situation who has any kind of feeding tube? I find that hard to believe; nobody's said a word about overturning living wills or situations in which the family AGREES on what the person in question really would have wanted. And last I checked, Operation Rescue did not have the authority to overturn living wills.

The cases you cite were not exactly like Terri's: with both Karen Ann Quinlan and Nancy Cruzan there was family consensus that they really would not want to live this way and had expressed such wishes previously (since both were single, the ultimate testimony to this fact came from their parents, who don't have quite the conflict of interest that a possibly-abusive, certainly moved-on husband may be said to have). Furthermore, Quinlan's was a ventilator case; she was in a coma - the whole court dispute was about removing her from the ventilator. That's a very different creature from a feeding tube; furthermore, she lived for nine years after coming off the ventilator, and her family kept her fed until she died of other causes - pneumonia, I believe. Nancy Cruzan was closer to Terri's case; in fact, she was ahead of Terri in that there was general consensus that she was able to be spoon-fed. However, the parents said that she did not want to live like that and had previously told them so. Furthermore, for both Quinlan and Cruzan, the parents came out with this information fairly soon after their child was injured, though it took years to go through the courts. Forgive me for thinking that it's a different issue when there is a real consensus about what your views were, even if you didn't leave anything in writing.

That is the key issue here; there is no real agreement about what Terri wanted. The women in the other cases didn't write anything down, but their families were in solid agreement about what they wanted. Here, we don't even have that; we have the word of her husband (who initiated his action as soon as he had won 2 million for her care) and his sister and brother-in-law. Nope, no chance of collusion there! Her family say she wouldn't have wanted it - OK, maybe she didn't tell them. OK, her friends say she opposed taking Quinlan off her ventilator, and a ventilator is much more of a "living by machines" situation than a feeding tube! See? There's no real way to know.

THAT is what is getting the religious right into a lather. It is the fact that she is dying under extremely dubious evidence of her wishes and that the person who authorized this has, to say the least, conflicts of interest (she has NO other condition that would kill her soon - BTW do you mind giving me links to sources which show how many feeding tubes pulled in hospitals are from people who have that problem and NOTHING ELSE? You never quite answered the question). They think it shows fundamental disrespect for human life, and I tend to agree. I'm not one of the religious right by anyone's standards, incidentally - they wouldn't have me a on a bet - but I don't think they're doing this to revel in the sight of withered cancer patients having tubes shoved through their navels during their last hours while burning incense to the Great God Bush. They're doing it because they are afraid for her, and for the others who could follow in her path, dying by default EVEN when there is disagreement in the family and no real evidence as to what they wanted.

Cedarford, step back and listen to yourself. You're jousting with Randall Terry, and he's not here. Most everyone here, Ace included, seems content to look at this case as an isolated incident of extraordinary circumstances. Many of us think the law should be changed to prevent this sort of tragedy from happening again. But I haven't seen anyone at Ace of Spades HQ declare their opposition to Living Wills yet, much less their desire to relegate all end-of-life decisions to the state.

You're setting up these improbable straw men who mislead us with their disingenuous Nazi-eugenic slippery slope arguments. Meanwhile you're telling us all, quite disingenuously, that these straw men are leading us down a slippery slope to Christian Talibanism.

You knock down these Phantom Jesus Freaks again and again. And we just sort of sit back, bemused, as you either willfully or cluelessly misinterpret our motivations. In your world we must be either complicit in the 700 Club takeover, or dupes. You simply won't accept ( despite being told otherwise again and again) that most everyone you're arguing with doesn't believe half of what you impute to us, and don't follow the leaders you say are manipulating us. (Of course, if we weren't dupes or complicit, we would then agree with you. Q.E.D!)

The funny thing is, we know quite well what we each think about these issues, and having you try to tell us what we really think, and why we really think it, is kind of amusing. But if you seriously want to go warn the religious right about the religious right, why don’t you go bother the real thing, the nice evangelical folks at Worldmagblog.com? They may try to save your soul, but it looks like that’s happening here too.

One more thing: Terri Schiavo is, if not quite a complete vegetable, far from being pretty. She's dumpy and, with slight exceptions as seen on the videos, not in control of her movements or bodily functions. Seeing her makes people uncomfortable. She's at the center of this controversy because her husband is railroading her dispatch through the legal system, not because she's a hottie. If you think Terri Schiavo is a telegenic spokesmodel, well, your standards of beauty are quite different from mine.

...railroading her dispatch through the legal system...

Uh, the poor creature has been comatose for FIFTEEN YEARS. The compassionate thing to do is to let her die, not prolong her agony just so her insane parents can have a symbol of their alleged reverence for life. The woman gave herself brain damage because of an eating disorder that was no doubt brought on by her parents, BTW.

Get some perspective. Dragging on the so-called life of one human vegetable is not the most pressing issue in the world this weekend.

"The woman gave herself brain damage because of an eating disorder that was no doubt brought on by her parents, BTW."

Oh boy. That statement makes your comment impossible to take seriously so I'll assume you're whoring for hits on your blog. Your blog sucks, BTW.

I have to admit, I find it a little amazing that so many have taken this on as such a frenzied cause celebre. What Cedarford is right about is the fact that decisions like this are made all the time. People have relatives make choices about their deaths, have doctors make choices about their deaths, and often these deaths involve the removal of feeding tubes, or other "passive killing" measures.

The characterization of dehydration as a particularly gruesome death is also an overwrought one, especially in someone that lacks higher brain functions and is not subject to the terror involved in impending doom. At a certain point, the body secretes hormones and chemicals that block pain and an actual sensation of hunger. Doctors have the ability to manage pain until the end with painkillers. Thus, framing this issue in the most emotional, hyperbolic terms is another weird thing about these threads.

And this comment above:

SOMEBODY WITH HALF A BRAIN BETTER GET A STATEMENT OUT OF HILLARY CLINTON AND FORCE HER TO TAKE A POSITION, BECAUSE IT WILL MATTER.

... pretty much validates everything Oliver Willis is saying about the right wing piggybacking on one family's pain for political purposes. And it severely annoys me when someone puts me in a position to agree with Oliver Willis.

This person (and Peggy Noonan) acts as if all of those that aren't campaigning for Schiavo are going to suffer horribly at the hands of the electorate, when most of the polls that I've seen show that a clear majority feel very strongly about not wanting to live under such circumstances.

Really, a lot of this is going off the rails. The outrage, the compassion for this woman when none of you have been campaigning so strongly for the rights of the thousands and thousands of other men and women that are removed from feeding tubes, not rescusitated, surrender the decision for intervention to the will of their coldblooded doctors or have a husband or wife decide to let them die against the wishes of other family members.

It seems obvious logic that "if her parents want her to live, they should be able to take responsibility," and there is a legit argument for that. But there is a legal process involved here, it places priority on the sanctity of marriage, and this is not a unique legal/medical situation. The fact that Ace and the rest of you are willing to grind the other activities of the federal government to a halt and throw all of the cherished principles of due process and states rights out the window for one woman's life doesn't quite strike me as appropriate, moving compassion.

It strikes me as analogous to those on the left that would seize on the death of one Iraqi family in the midst of a war as an incident that should determine the policy and procedure of our federal government.

In short, it lacks perspective.

Yeah lets punish HOSPICE for following a court order, those fuckers are little Eichmans... Unbelievable that someone would attack an organization like Hospice. Its bad enough those nutjobs are out at all hour of the day crying and yelling and making the OTHER people there miserable in their last days.

Basically in the posts on these subjects you come squarely on the side of completely perverting a long and systematic process because you don't agree with the outcome. Tell me how that's different from the MoveOn.org types in the world.

The husband has the right to know his wife's wishes, its been that way in civil law forever, it has stood up in not only the first court case but the millions of appeals. Mr Shiavo has said on multiple times in arbitration he will get any expert in the world that the family wants and fly them in to look at her, but they must stick by what that expert says. They have consistently refused. If you think you'd like to be a prisoner in your body for 15 years with little more than a funtioning brain stem then fine, but somehow I doubt it if the issue moved from the abstract to the more concrete.

Not accepting any outcome but the one you want makes you no different than O-dub and his merry band of fools. Consider yourself one long time reader short.

Jay Cost is back, and writing about the Schiavo case.

Wow well said Bill. I must have been typing because I didn't read that before I posted. Ok NOW I'm outta here.

"The fact that Ace and the rest of you are willing to grind the other activities of the federal government to a halt and throw all of the cherished principles of due process and states rights out the window for one woman's life doesn't quite strike me as appropriate, moving compassion." PaulB

I respect what you are saying Paul and in many cases I would be with you on that one, but when there is serious doubt as to the husband's agenda and as to whether Terry really did desire this, don't we have an obligation to make certain our system is working?

Yes, Justice should be blind, but we who have given her power over us, must remain vigilant to see that She is doing her job ...

This is life and death. Letting Justice decide with a woman's death as the end result, and then working to fix the system, seems unacceptable in this case.

Well said Bill and Paul.

Ace this protest is as ill-concieved as something the left dreams up. Oh right a leftist did dream it up. Hopefully you thoughtfully read Bill's post.

Bill from INDC:

You are correct in what you say, on many levels. But there still is this little media frenzy, and both sides of the political aisle have swarmed onto this case.

So, instead of pointing out sobering truths, such as you have, you must still ask yourself why this case has come to be a social magnet for people on both sides.

It may be easy to dismiss the whole thing as sort of gruesome theatre and political opportunism, but that doesn't quite cut it.

The doctor came in and gave the importance of the implications of allowing this case to change the trajectory of existing laws and procedures on end-of-life issues. I agreed with him. It does carry that potential.

Then there are people that have compared this individual case to the thousands that happen all the time that may be similar and go unnoticed.

And finally, there is the nasty nut of the courts and the legal guardian still being the husband.

I wish it were all that simple. The politicalization of this case is now a reality, and you cannot wipe it away by wishing it were so. We don't know if Ms. Schiavo's case will cause the hurricane of events that people are afraid of happening. But we do know that there is a political swarm going on, and we must deal with it.

But then there are things about this case that make it unique. For one, people whose families decide to pull the plug do it in silence and grace all the time, but this didn't happen here. The differences are real, and you cannot ignore them. In those other cases, in general but not always, the decision of when to pull the plug is made by siblings, spouses, in collaboration with medical caregivers, all in grief trying to make sense of everything; and there is the family's cries at the loved and lost. But they concur on when and if to pull the plug.

Is Ms. Schiavo being used as a political pawn? Perhaps. But doesn't Mr. Schiavo's persistence kind of give you the chills? Is Jeb Bush the lotion boy for the right-to-life movement? I don't know.

But I do know this: There's something about this case that has caused national attention and political posturing and grassroots movements. And one must answer those questions before one posits the statemenet's you have made and say we lack perspective.

I don't think that this case is just the latest Scott Peterson or OJ Simpson sideshow. I think it has caused many people to check their minds and their hearts and ask the questions that flow from this case, and have found those answers to be unsettling.

Perhaps this will all pass, and the all resisting march of time will place what is now a flash point and turn it into just another nominal chapter of history.

Or, the voices of millions that see in this case the depravity of our society, and everything they hold sacred getting degraded, will be heard, and they may cause changes for the good of us all. Or, as some fear, the harm of us all.

But to wish this case weren't being played out as it has is like sort wishing people didn't have emotions. It'd be nice if everyone approached these issues with sober logic bereft of emotion, but I'd like to think that would make for a sterile society.

This is a heart and mind issue. And it's big. Thus, perhaps there is a reason for this. Look to those, and you'll find human nature in all of its baseness and glory.

This time, at least one relative wants to kill her. Next time, perhaps zero will do.

I see the scum has floated on its way over here, and is lecturing us on how to think and spend our time. Who knew Cedartard had so many friends. Richard Bennett, who is omniscient and omnipotent, spaketh from on high: "The woman gave herself brain damage because of an eating disorder that was no doubt brought on by her parents." Well, hell, why didn't we consult you for the facts in the case first! Looks like we wasted loads of time reading articles by doctors and other people in actual contact with the woman.

Then along comes BillfromINDC, who has been coasting on his role in the Rather fake document exposé, but has revealed himself here as being Oliver Willis Lite (and I'm not talking about his physical appearance, about which I know nothing): "The characterization of dehydration as a particularly gruesome death is also an overwrought one, especially in someone that lacks higher brain functions and is not subject to the terror involved in impending doom." I'm so glad to know you have insight on what this woman is going to feel (is feeling right now). Perhaps you could send a letter to the woman's parents reassuring them that their daughter can't feel any pain or terror. That'll shut 'em up!

Then he flaps on about how, because one person here said something about Hillary Clinton, that "... pretty much validates everything Oliver Willis is saying about the right wing piggybacking on one family's pain for political purposes." Yeah, we're all one monolithic Borg of rightwing theotard thought in here.

Then some creature named Paul B. weighs in, this time how cruel we are to be mean to the nice hospice. Well it's true, people are supposed to die at places like that, aren't they? The law's just helping this organization fulfill its function.

You know, I think if I were a relative of any of these people I'd be a little worried.

Andrea Harris: Well said, but be careful....Bill has banned folks (me for one) for less; Big-time ego problem. Regards.

Andrea Harrris:

You're wonderful. That was splendid. And the reference to the Borg has my heart swooning. I'm happily married with three kids, but there are many males that must have loved that.

But then, you could have meant Bjorn Borg, who was rather monolithic. Sort of a human backboard. Whatever got hit his way, he slammed it back. So that analogy, while not as geekly-moving as the hive-mind, kind of fits in a tenuous way.

Anyway, thanks for your brilliant post. You were a bit more assertive than I in my most recent post, but after having taken in the nuts by the retard Cedartista* one too many times, I felt compelled to give Bill from INDC credit for laying out his thoughts in a measured way, though I don't agree with him.

*who, by the way, is a cock sucker

"That is the key issue here; there is no real agreement about what Terri wanted. "

That's entirely irrelevant, legally. There is agreement on what Terry Schiavo wanted; the judge ruled on it and the ruling was upheld. It's now a matter of legal fact.

Florida legislators gave family members a way to protest the guardian's decision, and they used it. The parents had their chance to prove that Terry woudl have wanted to live. They were unable to convince the judge, and unable to convince the appeals court that the judge erred in his decision.

So the key issue here is not what Terry Schiavo wanted, but the fact that lots of people disagree with the judge who decided what she would want in the absence of her written statement.

The thing that Cedarford, Bill, Paul B., Cal, and fellow travellers want to ignore is the FACT that there is significant scientific doubt as to whether Terri is in a PVS. What they don't seem to get is the vast majority of people sympathetic to Terri, myself included, don't consider this a Right To Die case. We simply perceive an injustice and are reacting to that. The fact that they feel they have to defend Judge Greer and 'the system' should be a pretty strong indication that they have sorely misjudged the intentions of those fighting to save Terri.

What all of you Michael Schiavo defenders are totally missing here is the fact that a corrupt county judge, who took money from hundreds of attorneys practicing in his court (as well as hundreds of guardians he appointed to manage the affairs of ligigants in his court), chose to completely ignore over twelve years of documented abuse by Michael Schiavo.

Michael Schiavo should have been removed as guardian over a decade ago, after the first time he tried to kill Terri. In 1993, he illegally refused to allow treatment of antibiotics for Terri's urinary tract infection. Against his wishes, the nurses caring for Terri treated her. The facts of this incident are not in dispute- he freely admitted to them under oath.

Michael Schiavo should have been out of the picture a long, long time ago. He is the ONLY reason why this case is in the media. If justice had been served, Terri's parents would have been caring for her since the mid 1990's, using the proceeds of the malpractice settlement, and nobody would even know who the hell she was.

Dogstar: Thanks for helping to focus on the crux of this problem. Even if Michael Schiavo had nothing to do with the original injury, his conflicts of interest are manifest. Also manifest is the stench coming from Judge Greer's courtroom.
I'm open to anyone giving me an example of where Greer ever ruled against Mr. Schiavo even when there were sworn statements from several (at least three) of her caregivers about the neglect. Hell, the damn judge never once even took the time to visit her bedside.

Basically in the posts on these subjects you come squarely on the side of completely perverting a long and systematic process because you don't agree with the outcome. Tell me how that's different from the MoveOn.org types in the world.

I don't get this, actually. If a man is to be executed for a murder that the facts show he either did not commit, or at least cast strong doubt on his culpability, do we say "Eh, kill him without attempting any challenge in other courts or requesting the President grant him clemency, because, you know, the System says he must die."

The system is generally good and fair. Well, let's say the system is often good and fair; sometimes, as has been said, the law is an ass.

You seem to be saying that "the process" is over and we should accept that. Except it isn't. There are further parts of "the process" to explore, including appeals to the Supreme Court. And including changing the law, especially on a state level-- judges are supposed to interpret the law, and if the law changes, well, tough tittie. They're supposed to interpret the NEW law then; they can't say, "Oh, I preferred the old one better, so nuts to you."

Not accepting any outcome but the one you want makes you no different than O-dub and his merry band of fools. Consider yourself one long time reader short.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way, Paul B. I recognize your handle and I remember you posting here before. I will regret losing a reader, but I can hardly change my opinion in order to keep you around.

The facts are a bitch, ain't they?

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/CIyerAffidavit090203.htm

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/hlawaffidavit.htm

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/AffidavitTCapone050901.pdf

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/cjohnsonaff.pdf

Ace, feel free to clean this post up. I don't know how to do the HTML stuff.

If the law is changed to require, say, unanimous agreement among the family for euthanasia in the absence of a living will, or to say that a man who is quite clearly no longer a "husband" should not be a guardian, is not that change in the law also part of "the process"?

If changing the law isn't part of "the process," what the hell are you doing arguing about politics, anyway? That's what politics is-- arguing about changing the law in order to change "the outcome," as you put it.

Whether it's taxes or tort reform or what have you-- that's what politics is.

I don't know your position on partial-birth abortion, but I wonder if you take the position that "the process" has decreed that it's legal under all circumstances, and ergo there's no further point trying to upset the apple cart about it.

Sonetka -

Good post. I knew there were respirator questions with Quinlan, but my understanding was that she survived that being removed unexpectedly and died about a week later from dehydration (her watering IV was removed) and air passage impairment.

People who wonder how Schiavo got so big in the media and with politics have to look at the Religious Right PR machine. Randall Terry, who fought both the Quinlan and Cruzan decisions despite unanimity of family on the end of life decision is the spokesman again for the Schindler family, a role he played in 2002, 2003 - and his group and other Religious Right luminaries have provided the funds to do extensive lobbying, media outreach on behalf of the Schindlers, as well as provide money for the Schindlers legal challenges.

People saying this is not an orchestrated effort by the Right to Life fringe, but instead a "natural uprising" by ethical people of all persuasions - don't have the vaguest idea......This is the 4th or so case where Terry has laid out a meticulous PR/legal campaign costing millions around a pretty young white woman who serves as a stalking horse to proxy for 100,000 similar cases each year who are not so media telegenic. Think Terry would pick a gay AIDs sufferer with advanced dementia, an old Black woman with end stage Alzheimers?

A "Save Dirk!" or "Save Cassie-Mae" campaign???

Guess again.

See-Dubya questions the "pretty white woman" strategy, saying he finds the 41-year old PVS Schiavo unattractive to him, dumpy even..He ignores the iconic pictures toted by the Religious Right and mailed to every media outlet - of Schiavo as an attractive 20, 21 year old. It's the old "attractive damsel in distress" game played out in a different venue for the Media and the gossip-loving public that can't get enough Chandra, Jessica Lynch, or Laci Peterson to help elevate their humdrum lives.

As some other posters wisely note, the House Bill that Randall Terry lobbied Hastert and Delay for would have federalized appeals for all end of life decisions, even with total family unity...because the Right to Lifers inserted language "not only family may appeal to Federal recourse of State actions in this matter, but any interested 3rd party".

Meaning Randall Terry and Operation Rescue would have finally gained official standing as a party co-equal to families involved in end of life matters, in Federal Court. Lack of standing has been the Right to Lifer's biggest legal obstacle to sue families over end-of-life decisions and dare we say...abortions? Standing makes outsiders co-equal in the sense that the Court would have to take Randall or any other 3rd Parties ability to sue on behalf of a "suffering innocent" as seriosly as a family's suit ....and if Randall Terry sues in Federal Court, the family better have the money & lawyers to fight, or they are screwed on honoring patient's wishes.

The House Law excepted only those cases where Living Wills were in effect.

But other precidents allow suing over the binding nature of Living Wills, something Operation Rescue as well as disaffected family members have also challenged in State Court. Only 15% of Americans have a Living Will, and many crafted without a lawyer have legal flaws that allow suits to overturn or modify them. There is nothing about a Living Will that makes them untouchable to a hostile party's lawyer....they may stick, they are powerful, but still subject to suit unless States craft laws saying suits cannot occur over Living Wills - something the lawyers populating State Legislatures are somehow reluctant to do...

The culmination of this long, well run campaign that uses emotions they carefully brought forth in the individual persona of Terri Schiavo, the constant repetition of lies long since debunked in Court proceedings - may be an overturning of how all end of life issues are handled. More lawyers, vastly more expense to taxpayers, power seized from States and given to a Federal Gov't that must expand further to handle what they appropriated from state and local hospital committees.

I am certainly not the first to recognize this as a very emotionally charged issue. I wanted to post this comment only to say that Ace has allowed for free expression here on both sides. Paul, it is unfortunate that over this issue, you want to leave this site blocking yourself off those who might disagree. This is only my personal opinion, but I just don't understand anyone wanting to surround themselves with only those who agree with them.

"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me." ~Dudley Field Malone (1882-1950)~

For the past several days, I have been annihilated by so many of my own party, my "group". It would not occur to me to abandon them. It is simply a reminder that I am not an "all or nothing" democrat. I still believe I can form personal opinions on a per issue basis, not based on whether the tag says "conservative" or "liberal".

I have a questrion for those who want to continue feeding Terri Schiavo: regarding the theory of evolution, do you feel that Darwin was wrong?

Just curious.

Kind of a baiting question, but speaking for myself: Darwin was wrong in the details, as later evolutionary biologists have shown. Evolution occurs, and is responsible for the plethora of different forms of life on the planet, but not quite by the mechanisms he originally proposed.

Hmm-kay?

We all stereotype, and I do it too as regards liberals. So I guess I have little firm footing upon which to stand and decry your baiting.

But I am trying to hold back on liberal baiting, particularly in regards to the Schiavo case -- because I believe a lot of liberals, were they to know the full facts, would actually want to join the effort to save her life, whether or not that put them on the side of the hated evangelicals -- so, at least in this regard, it would be appreciated if that aversion to baiting were reciprocated.

And yes, a lot of religious conservatives who want Terri to live believe in creationalism or what not. I'm not sure how that's relevant, except in the broad and crude impulse to say "You're all fucking crazy."

Just trying to figure out what motivates people, on your side, Ace.

It seems to me that a person has to be able to ignore a whole lotta facts to believe that fifteen years of brain damage are going to be reversed by a little therapy and a lot of prayer.

What details did Darwin get wrong? Obviously, he didn't know what a gene was, but he didn't make stuff up that had to be rejected.

The mechanisms he proposed for natural selection turned out to be wrong, or mostly wrong. I'm not really hip on the details but things like migrations of subgroups into a new region have much more impact on evolution than the survival of the fittest model he originally proposed.

And evolution is not gradual; things don't evolve for thousands of years and suddenly evolve due to changes in environment.

Stuff like that.

If you weren't baiting, fine. But I just don't really see how any of this is relevant. It seems like you're just trying to put this into the "Krazy Kristian Kapers" file.

I have been more than clear in my posts about what "animates" me and many on my side in this case. I have not been cagey about it. If you bother to read, you'll find that I do not object to someone having a right to die in principle; I object to THIS PARTICULAR euthanasia because

1) she never expressed her *choice* to be euthanized...

2) only her estranged and more-or-less divorced husband claims she said she'd want to die (and, okay, his brother, and his sister-in-law)

3) and the husband is a husband in name only and not really family any longer; her remaining REAL family should decide her fate, not a stranger

and

4) Basically, in cases where there is considerable doubt as to someone's wishes, we ought to err on the side of life.

That's it. That's the reason many of us, including a few liberals posting here, are angry about this. It has nothing to do with Jesus.

For all the talk about being obsessed with Jesus, I hate to say it, but sometimes I think you on the left are a bit more obsessed by Him than most on the right.

Richard - how many people here are saying that her brain damage will be reversed with a little therapy and a whole lotta prayer? I've said before (don't know if it was here - sorry) that I think her parents are probably deluding themselves about the possibility of her recovering; she's probably gone for good. You seem to be under the impression that there are only two options, either support pulling her feeding tube or believe that it's possible for her to have a wondrous recovery. What about a third option; let her live, even though permanently brain-damaged, because she's not dying, there is no overwhelming indication that she would want to die in this particular case, and there are people who want to take care of her as she is?

And as Ace says, it does seem that the most Christianity-obsessed posters are the ones trying to impute to us a lot of things we never said.

Cedarford - The only knowledge I have of interested third parties is from child custody cases, but I should point out that an "interested third party" is not just any random person who cares to make a stink; the person must demonstrate that it is in the subject of the case's best interest to be cared for by them. You can't just walk into a court and say "I'm an interested third party, allow me to obstruct these proceedings." You first have to demonstrate that you have some sort of connection (related, already caring for, helping to pay for/support/care for). So unless Operation Rescue is going to somehow magically establish previous relationships with these people -and, more to the point, take care of them - I seriously doubt you'll be seeing them thwarting a united family's wishes any time soon. This is a very crude definition of what an interested third party is, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I just wanted to point out that "interested third party" is not legalese for "anyone." Any lawyers, please feel free to correct me; as I said, my understanding of this definition is not complete.

I'm still wondering how Randall Terry has managed to somehow dominate the national news cycle; he's not that popular with the mainstream types. But I'll play for a minute. For picking an old black woman with end-stage Alzheimer's or a gay man with AIDS and dementia .... OK, leave the racial and sexual qualifications out of it for a minute. Suppose we had an old white woman in end-stage Alzheimer's? Suppose we had a young hemophiliac man with dementia and AIDS (I assume you mean fullblown AIDS, not merely HIV). I'm sure they're out there. The reason they would make terrible cases is because they are actively dying, and their families are not divided as to their care and what their wishes were; furthermore, the conditions you cite don't just happen overnight; somebody who's found out he has HIV or Alzheimer's has ample time to think things over and make his wishes known. Randall Terry seems to have a lot of power in your opinion, but I doubt even he could stand up against someone who's in end-stage Alzheimer's, who suffers because of a feeding tube, is dying of something that is not lack of food, and whose family agrees that this is what she stated that she wanted. As for young white women - I believe the important qualifier here is not "white" but "young"; it is rare for something like this to strike someone who is young and not dying of something else, who will be fine and dandy for decades as long as the nutrition is there.

Finally, can I just make a slightly off-topic observation? Please do not tell us what it is that we are seeing. You contradict See-Dubya by saying that the Religious Right (why is it always capitalized, like Mothra?) has been sending photos of the young Terri Schiavo to all media outlets, when he states that the only pictures of her he's seen make her look rather dumpy. Sending photos to media outlets is not the same as the media outlets publishing them; and while doubtless there are places that use younger photos of her, they aren't the ones he's been reading (nor have I, for that matter). Please don't tell him what you think he should have been seeing.

Randall Terry is a terrorist, an American Osama bin Laden or Gerry Adams, who should be on death row for the murders he's committed. His opinion means nothing.

The issue in this case is who decides what's to happen to this poor, brain-damaged (or -dead, depending on your point of view) woman.

Thousands of years of common law, the Constitution, and the laws of the state of Florida say the husband decides. To undermine that principle is to assault the sanctity of marriage, which is a greater loss to the Republic than all the fairy weddings you can imagine.

As a matter of principle, the grandstanding should stop and we should respect the foundations of our civilization and our country.

Fox News reports that 19 judges in 6 courts have already ruled on this case. Enough is enough.

Who here is saying that Randall Terry's opinion means anything?

Richard "Dick" Bennett: socially liberal, fiscally conservative, totally douchebag.

Good point, Sonetka.

I had hoped that liberals could actually look at the facts rather than looking for enemies and simply taking the opposite position. Some have, but most seem to just be doing what I earlier suggested: deciding if the hated Christians want something, it must be opposed with all vigor.

I think it's hilarious how these idiotic liberals keep pointing to the fact that Michael Schiavo is her husband as some kind of qualification he studied eight years to obtain, that makes him somehow better than anyone else to decide her fate.

See, the thing is, Michael Schiavo can't NOT be her husband. Get it? He can't divorce her, she can't divorce him. He's been fucking around with anyone he can talk into a dinner and a movie (paid for, of course, with insurance money) for the last fourteen years. He's got two kids from someone else, who he is "engaged" to.

WTF? Is it logically possible to be LESS of a husband, and still be one?

The fact that he is her husband means absolutely nothing. Nada. Zilch. The fact that he managed to hire an attorney who knew how to pay off a corrupt judge means everything.

That's a lame argument, Ace. I voted for Bush both times and strongly supported the liberation of Iraq, even when so-called conservatives like Pat Buchanan didn't. And I also supported the liberation of Bosnia and Kosovo when so-called conservatives like Tom DeLay didn't, but that's another story.

The Schiavo case is national headlines now, after 15 years on the back burner, because of DeLay's ethical problems. It's classic misdirection.

No conservative can argue, on a principled basis, that the Congress has the right to make any family matter it wishes its own business. This congressional power-grab violates all that the Conservative movement stands for, and it's a national disgrace.

You're the liberal here, dude.

Dog, your understanding of divorce law is severely wrong.

Hey Dick- Michael Schiavo sued to disconnect her feeding tube in his capacity as GUARDIAN, not HUSBAND. Ok? And GUARDIANS are generally removed/replaced for things like, oh, I don't know, trying to KILL PEOPLE.

See, in case you weren't aware of this, back in 1993 Michael Schiavo tried unsuccessfully to KILL Terri. He admitted to this under oath.

These four words are all you need to know:

(1) The
(2) judge
(3) is
(4) corrupt.

19 different judges have already ruled on this case, according to Fox News.

(1) Are
(2) they
(3) all
(4) corrupt?

Ace, you clearly have some the leading intellectuals of our time commenting on your blog. You must be proud.

*Sigh*...

You know, you would think that someone who likes to brag about the number of patents he claims to be have been awarded might be capable of actually RESEARCHING an issue before embarrassing himself.

Evidently, it must be extrememly difficult for multiple patent holders to glance through all the posts in a thread before demonstrating their ignorance, so here you go:

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/CIyerAffidavit090203.htm

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/hlawaffidavit.htm

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/AffidavitTCapone050901.pdf

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/cjohnsonaff.pdf

Hmmmm.....all your documents emanate from a single source.

That's pretty telling.

Still whoring for blog hits Dicky? Go back from whence you came troll boy.

Once again: "Ace, you clearly have some the leading intellectuals of our time commenting on your blog. You must be proud."

Hey everyone, quit arguing! 'Cos you're all stupid! It must be true because Richard Bennett says so, and he's been on the internet longer than God, and he invented coaxial cables or something. He's like the voice of frickin' authority here!

It always kills me when somebody insults someone else's intelligence using a sentence like "...you clearly have some the leading..."

p.s. Dicky, at least Ace *has* some commenters!

Andrea Harris: Then some creature named Paul B. weighs in, this time how cruel we are to be mean to the nice hospice. Well it's true, people are supposed to die at places like that, aren't they? The law's just helping this organization fulfill its function.

You know I was just going to leave this alone but couldn't. It may amaze that self-righteous brain of yours that there could be someone that has donated money to Bush's campaign for re-election AND Hospice.

I recently lost a close family member, and he spent his last days in Hospice comfortably and with diginity. Doctors (you know they guys that are suppose to make medical opinions, not ideolougues who just swear they see somebody responding to them) told us his immune system had shut down and that his passing was inevitable. Now I guess by your definition it would have been less barabaric to just subject him to as much pain as possible to keep in alive in the eventual coma for as long as possible. Hey maybe modern medical science could keep his heart beating for a whole year of opportunistic infections and severe pneumonia! His guardians (lets see by your definition "evil doers") decided that he should spend his last days and hours in comfort, and that is where Hospice came in.

In fact, because we live in Pinellas County, Florida, it was the same Hospice Terri is in. Fortunately he was there during a lull in the protesting, but yeah it would have kinda pissed my family off to have disruption in their service because you assholes feel you have to make some sort of statement to Hospice as a whole because you don't agree with what's happpening to one of the residents there. Hell why not come protest in front of every family's doorstep that has a loved one in that Hospice? That'll show 'em. We think losing a member of the family is hard, you guys can really show us!

Sorry you self-righteous pricks just get a hearty FUCK YOU from me.

I don't see how your relative's sad passing changes anything, Paul B., much less what your recounting of it (and your recitation of your campaign and charitable deductions) has to do with the subject of Terri Schiavo, or why we are supposed to curl up with guilt or something. For the record, I live in Florida too, but I've never been to Pinellas Park that I can recall, and I certainly wouldn't go there even if I could to participate in any sort of disruption for any reason whatsoever. So all your fury directed at me just seems silly, not to mention misdirected.

By the way, hospices are (correct me if I am wrong) places where terminally people are taken to die. Terri Schiavo was not terminally ill, except for the same terminal illness we all have which is being mortal creatures who will die sooner or later. She really shouldn't be in such a place, but in some sort of rehabilitation facility or nursing home, right?

Paul B. wrote: "Not accepting any outcome but the one you want makes you no different than O-dub and his merry band of fools. Consider yourself one long time reader short."

Funny how they just can't stay away, isn't it?

"Hmmmm.....all your documents emanate from a single source.

That's pretty telling." - Richard Bennett

So the fact that the proprietor(s) of www.terrisfight.org have put together a number of documents relating to Terri's case in one easy to access place is "pretty telling" is it? That just stupid. But I suppose you consider yourself one of the "leading intellectuals of our time". Thanks so much for giving everyone here the benefit of your superior intellect.

You know, if we're going to do it for Cedarford*, why can't we all start doing it for Dick**?

*who is, by the way, a cocksucker.

**who is also, by the way, a cocksucker.

Actually, anonymous coward, I'm not a cocksucker, I'm a pussy-licker.

Get your facts straight, if you can.

After careful review:

1) Cedarford (who by the way is a cock sucker) remains a cocksucker.

2) Richard Bennett (who by the way claims to be a pussy licker) is apparently a cock swallower. In fact, I've heard on some authority he holds the patent on it.

Is this the way the common people amuse themselves? Reminds me of grade school.

Beggin' yer pardon, guv'nah. Don't mind all us "common people" tramplin' down the idyllic garden pathways of your mind.

I'm surprised you aren't in an emotional tizzy about Camilla Bowles possible ascension to the throne! Why, amongst all you hoity-toity bluebloods, I would imagine you are right frazzled by this possibility.

Mind you, you do seem to be an "uncommon" sort of folk. Usually Cedarford, who by the way is a cocksucker, is among the most pretentious, self-important assclowns on this board. You seem to have him beat tho'. At least for this evening.

"Uncommon assclownery" your name is Richard Bennett.

My Dear Bennett:

Look; what you have here is a fairly loose group of people that have strong ideas and have an appreciation of dark humor. Some even take it down even further with name calling. Is that the optimum way to conduct oneselves? I don't know. What's your preference?

Go over to Mr. Simon, Chrenkoff and a few other conservative Bloggers, and you'll find far less name calling. But then, you won't get the dark humor that Ace is so masterful at.

Ace has a lethal mix (I refer to my view of his posts and comments, no one elses) incisive opinion, strong writing and dark humor. You build that as the foundation of your Web site, and you end up with this very unique and worthy Blog. Take a look closer at this thread, though you may find it rife with name-calling, you'll also find plenty of solid discourse.

But to talk down to people that post comments that you do not like is sort of like saying you don't like Blogs, or at least Blogs that don't fit your definition of what a Blog should be. The whole idea of a Blog is to give voice, and powerful at that, to millions of people that never had this type of venue. It's sort of like democracy, warts and all. It grows in unpredictable ways. Democracy rests upon the singular notion that every individual has something of worth. And, those individuals are guaranteed equality of opportunity. Some twist the Declaration to think that means that people are all created equal and guaranteed equal outcomes.

We all have differences, and certainly people are never going to be equal in all respects. But in a Democracy, everyone has a basic right to try and reach their potential, and that right should not be taken away from anyone. Furthermore, in the right for someone to earn a living, and eat the bread they make from their own labor, every person here is your equal and mine. So, we have equal chance, not equal outcome.

Same with the Blogs. Not everyone's opinion is as good or strongly thoughtful as others, and we are free to try and grasp at the truth by filtering through these posts. I'm not of the opinion that everyone's judgment merits equal value; that'd be crazy. But everyone can say what they want here, and that's very precious.

Would you prefer to set up some governing board of Blog-worthy decision makers? Who sits in judgment of those that are worthy? You?

And as to the name calling, sometimes when someone calls you something nasty, you strike back. Some start it, others respond in kind, others ignore it, and some...perhaps deserve it. It'd be nice if eveyone could get along and achieve your desired mix of syllogism, intelligent thought and well-crafted sentences, but where the fuck are you going to find that? Probably at a Blog that lacks any real traffic or has huge filtering of ideas.

Try going over to KOS and lurking. It's rather lovely. Sort of a swamp. Here is nothing like there. And you can, of course, always change the channel.

If I grasp your nuance, KCTrio, this is a blog for poopie-heads, and if I don't like the comments I'm an elitist liberal.

Interesting.

I find that I'm pretty much in agreement with Bill of INDC on this one.

While I'm personally horrified by the method that is required to ease Terri's passing (starvation), I do believe she should be allowed to pass.

Seems like most of the posting on this matter i've seen lately is just basic guts talking, so why clutter the issue with facts.

Want facts? Read the report of the Guardian ad Litem appointed by Jeb Bush in 03.

http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/SchiavoFinalReport.pdf

here's the link, from Byron York at NRO...

Of course, if you read that, you might feel embarrassed sliming Michael Schiavo as a monster while elevating the Schindlers as paragons and defenders of Terri's rights - cause that's not exactly the way it reads.

It also sort of blows the characterizations of her care being witheld as simply Michael being cruel or uncaring. Or that Terri hasn't gotten physical therapy or intensive training. Or that the things you see on the videos aren't typical of people in PVS.

I'm thinking a lot of folks have been suckered into storming the castle - by the wrong people, with hyper-spun info.

Damn you people for making me agree a point Oliver Willis makes!

And dammit, Andrea, quit acting like effing Moulitsas! Argue woman, don't just denigrate and sling ad hominem! You're classier than that!

Actually, Dickie*, your use of the phrase "common people" as a disparagement earlier identifies you as an elitist.

Further, your own blog (which, to my chagrin, I bothered to check out) identifies you as "socially liberal".

So, you really are an "elitist liberal" by your own admission and acts. Score one for KCT, who didn't have to give you any traffic to come to that conclusion.

Further, I believe KCTrio's point was not that this is a blog for "poopie-heads" (is that a professional term, Dickie*?) but that this is a blog in which just about all forms of expression are tolerated. Hence, our hosts rather infrequent use of the banning option.

You see, Dickie*, many of us believe that people are able to act as their own filters. If my calling you a cock swallower means other's will discount what I say in subsequent posts, those are the breaks. If other's among us want to make serious, sober analytical points on the topic at hand, more power to them.

Further, KCT was helpfully pointing out that around here it helps to have a thick skin and a sense of humor if you want your points to be appreciated. And it appears that you have neither.

As a wise man often says "You can't fight the funny". And in you, Dickie*, there is an awful lot that's funny.

*who, by the way, is a cocksucker and a liberal elitist.

Waaaoh, Jack M!

What do you think about Schumer, Bloomie, Pataki, and last 'n least... Hillary?? Are they asshats too?

Bennett:

No, not trying to be nuanced at all, and I didn't say anything about elitist or liberal. I merely avered that this site draws the type of mix of comments you see here. Not always, but often.

I do believe that it's fair to say that some act childish, and I've dished out as much as any. So if anyone is guilty of playing in the mud here, I'm as guilty as any.

I'm merely saying that you mentioned more than once that this place had nothing but base insults and was pretty bereft of discourse. I'm saying you are wrong.

I have never looked at your Web site or Blog, and have not engaged you in any debate about this case.

The charge you cast I tried to explain why it is so here. That's it. Please do not try to take anything out of what I wrote other than this.

And I meant everything I said about there being some Blogs on the right (and on the left, I just don't visit many) where you'll find pretty high-level input with rare putdowns or bad language. I named some. There are probably hundreds or even thousands more. But they are the exception and not the rule, at least from where I'm sitting. The high traffic Blogs have lots of comments, and they span the spectrum from base to thoughtful to nominal.

If that's me calling you an elitist, I didn't mean to imply such a thing.

Cedarford*,

Schumer: Asshat.
Bloomie: Asshat, although as a smoking-nazi, you two might have some things in common....
Pataki: Asshat.
Hillary: The Mad Asshatter.

*who, by the way, is the original cocksucker.

"I'm thinking a lot of folks have been suckered into storming the castle - by the wrong people, with hyper-spun info."

So don't leave us in suspense. Who did the suckering? [I think I know where this is going(think cedarford)].

Hey WindBreaker or WindBlower or whatever:

Hate to break it to you, but the Wolfson Report is well-known, so you're not 'unveiling the truth' on us poor yokels.

Can you explain why you believe it to be "the facts"?

Because Jeb Bush appointed the GAL?

BFD

Maybe you should read those 'mind-blowing facts' that might make us "feel embarrassed sliming Michael Schiavo as a monster" a little closer:

Mr. Pearse documents the evolving disaffections between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo. He concludes that Michael Schiavo’s testimony regarding the basis for his decision to withdraw life support – a conversation he had with his wife, Theresa, was not clear and convincing, and that potential conflicts of interest regarding the disposition of residual funds in Theresa’s trust account following her death affected Michael and the Schindlers – but he placed greater emphasis on the impact it might have had on Michael’s decision to discontinue artificial life support. At the time of Mr. Pearse’s report, more than $700,000 remained in the guardianship estate.

Mr. Pearse concludes that Michael’s hearsay testimony about Theresa’s intent is “necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the sole heir at law…” and “…by the chronology of this case…”, specifically referencing Michael’s change in position relative to maintaining Theresa following the malpractice award.

IOW, the fact that Michael would gain $700K when Teresa dies was seen as a possible motivation for him to try to have her life support removed.

Then there are the following 'objective facts' peppered throughout the report:

On the tragic early morning of 25 February 1990, Theresa collapsed in the hallway of her apartment, waking Michael, who called Theresa’s family and 911.

He must have been there, right?

During the previous four years, he had insistently held to the premise that Theresa could recover and the evidence is incontrovertible that he gave his heart and soul to her treatment and care.

That's very objective, hmmm?

In early 1994 Theresa contracted a urinary tract infection and Michael, in consultation with Theresa’s treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a “do not resuscitate” order should Theresa experience cardiac arrest...In early 1994 Theresa contracted a urinary tract infection and Michael, in consultation with Theresa’s treating physician, elected not to treat the infection and simultaneously imposed a “do not resuscitate” order should Theresa experience cardiac arrest.

Fails to mention that doctors recommended treating that urinary infection with antibiotics, and advised that if untreated, the infection could spread, and possibly result in death.

It had taken Michael more than three years to accommodate this reality and he was beginning to accept the idea of allowing Theresa to die naturally rather than remain in the non-cognitive, vegetative state.

Another objective fact! It's riddled with this kind of speculative, subjective crap prose.

Mind-blowing indeed. heh

Well "(didn't leave a name)" - can't make a call on your financial status (poor) or your level of inbreeding (yokels), so let's see what else we have...

Nice cherry picking from the GAL report - but some pretty sloppy out of context useage, and ommision of clarifications in later paragraphs.

Such as the original GAL that made the financial bias charge left out that Michael formally offered to take a pass on the money...maybe that's why the judge basically fired him, ya think?

It says what it says...now, that you just don't like what it ways, not much hope for you there.

Such as the original GAL that made the financial bias charge left out that Michael formally offered to take a pass on the money...maybe that's why the judge basically fired him, ya think?

Oh he *offered*. Didn't go through with that offer, did he? I can offer to cure cancer, don't mean much if I don't follow up, huh?

If one GAL can be 'fired', then it sounds like there's a possibility they might not be infallible.

So why is Wolfson the arbiter of the truth?

And you didn't address all of the subjective statements contained in this document that finally provides us with 'the facts'.

From Foghorn's blog:

This is a very valuable source document, as it recounts, in an unbiased manner, the relevant facts of the entire case. It's an interesting read - and it directly contradicts quite a bit of the more heated rhetoric and charged accusations that have been flying around lately about this case.

It makes me think a lot of the 'Right' side of the blogosphere is getting this one wrong, but bulling on forward based on their gut feelings, not the facts.

So, no bias on your part, eh?

Nice job spending a few paragraphs 'demonizing' the Schindlers. But of course, it was all taken from the report, so of course it must be TRUE!

And dammit, BrewFan, quit acting like effing O-Chub! Argue man, don't just denigrate and sling ad hominem! You're classier than that!

I dunno, KCTrio, it just looks like a bunch of poopie-heads from where I sit. S & M poopie-heads, but poopie-heads nonetheless.

Any respectable blog should ban people like DoggieStyle and Jack until they turn 16 just for the fun of it.

"" wrote: "And dammit, BrewFan, quit acting like effing O-Chub! Argue man, don't just denigrate and sling ad hominem! You're classier than that!"

I'm not going to debate somebody who alludes to imagined conspiracies or somebody who believes themselves to be the intellectual superior to everybody here. Whats the point? I think most of these people are self-interested bloggers who are looking for hits.

Yeah, well, you said that already and it was lame the first time.

Lame? As opposed to this rhetorical brilliance? "The woman gave herself brain damage because of an eating disorder that was no doubt brought on by her parents, BTW. Get some perspective. Dragging on the so-called life of one human vegetable is not the most pressing issue in the world this weekend."

Right.

Bennett:

Fine, you've made your judgment. I tried to explain why I disagreed. But what about that charge of you calling me nuanced and in essesnce just calling you an elitist liberal?

I didn't know you were liberal, just read that others had called you that. I reserve that appellation for what my eyes see at your Blog, which I informed you I hadn't read.

Do you retract your accusation? Not that I would expect such a thing, but since you made the charge, and now I have explained myself, do you still hold that I was being nuanced and calling you a liberal elitist, or would you retract that and simply say that I gave you what I see as fair dialog tinged with venom and you don't see it that way.

Respond or not. It's up to you. But I'd like to have seen something of the sort above, considering I took the time to explain myself and you took the time to read it and restate how you see the comments here. But you didn't mention the elistist/liberal thang. Which is what elicited my response.

Cool! Dickie* wants me banned! If it wouldnt result in you getting an extra hit, I'd go over to your site and let you ban me there. I'm a giver, Dickie*.

Although, maybe I should reconsider! I could wear it like a badge of honor and market it the way those "Banned in Boston" books used to do.

Of course I would eventually get tired of answering the inevitable "who is Dickie* Bennett" question. And, my ban wouldn't seem nearly as cool once they/if they ever figured out who you were.

See...that's the problem with having interacted with you, Dickie*. Your pompous, elitist, liberal asshattery is like a fun sponge sucking all the life out of every chat room it enters, while, at the same time, your lack of credibility or general noteworthiness contributes nothing to fill the void left as a result.

As you know, Dickie**, nature abhors a vacuum. Maybe that's why your life here has been so hard.

* who, by the way, is an "elitist liberal" cocksucker.
** who, by the way, sucks cocks like a Hoover.

Where's Breaker of Wind? Digging up more 'shocking facts'?

Jack M.

I'm going to refrain from the bashing on this guy, because it's been done by others, and he's not directed any venom my way. But, off on a very wonederul tangent...I bring you Cecil Adams and his story about a guy who got his weenie stuck in a Hoover Dustettte.

It's classic.

February 2, 1990

The Letter:

Dear Cecil:

What can you tell us about vacuum cleaner wounds to the penis? This malady apparently afflicts an informational underclass who think that a vacuum cleaner can simulate fellatio. --Inquiring Mind, Chicago

Cecil replies:

Got those midwinter blues, kids? Cecil has just the thing to brighten up your dull lives. Several cases of "penile injuries from vacuum cleaners" were reported about ten years ago in the British Medical Journal. The injury reports are classic:

"Case 1--A 60-year-old man said that he was changing the plug of his Hoover Dustette vacuum cleaner in the n*de while his wife was out shopping. It 'turned itself on' and caught his penis, causing tears around the external meatus.... Multiple lacerations of the glans [were] repaired with catgut.

"Case 2--A 65-year-old railway signalman was in his signal box when he bent down to pick up his tools and 'caught his penis in a Hoover Dustette, which happened to be switched on.' He suffered extensive lacerations to the glans.

"Case 3--A 49-year-old man was vacuuming his friend's staircase in a loose-fitting dressing gown, when, intending to switch the machine off, he leaned across to reach the plug; 'at that moment his dressing gown became undone and his penis was sucked into the vacuum cleaner.'"

I think it is very unfair of you to suggest that these tragic victims were involved in unnatural acts. Here they were, just trying to keep things tidy, when they were attacked by a treacherous appliance. The real fault lies with the Hoover company for manufacturing such a dangerous product. But even the doctors are snickering, the cads. The report quoted above concludes, "the Hoover Dustette [has] fan blades about 15 cm from the inlet. The present patients may well have thought that the penis would be clear of the fan but were driven to new lengths by the novelty of the experience and came to grief." New lengths, indeed. Just wait till it happens to you.

--CECIL ADAMS

"causing tears around the external meatus"

I admit this had me giggling like a ten year old. This man was obviously beating his meatus.

(I did not know meatus is a medical term. You learn something new everyday. And to think you have those on the sides of your head too!)

Brewfan:

Thank Cecil Adams for the beautiful response to the letter. I just happen to have read most of the columns the man's written, and I remember just enough from them so that I know, if I see a statement in a thread that reminds me of one of those columns, I can go find the one that meats [sic] the topic.

Glad it gave you a chuckle. Sorry if it offended anyone. But hey, that's our job, isn't it? After all, if we are a bunch of poopie-heads, we must work mighty hard at it to keep the standard as high as possible. We wouldn't want to slouch towards cogent debate, would we?

Here's the deal, KCTrio: for folks like DoggieStyle and Jackie O. and BrewFan, this is a matter of simple self-interest. If the state can snuff somebody just because of a little brain damage, well, you know, it gets pretty scary.

So I do understand their concerns and the very personal nature of their attachment to Terri Schiavo.

Thanks to all of you for helping me work this out.

DID YOU KNOW I THINK THAT WAS BORING AND I DIDN'T EVEN READ IT NEXT TIME HAA