I know it might be inappropriate to point it out now, but she certainly was a hottie before her "accident". I sure hope they can save her...it may be too late. Use your power, Jeb!

If she was a dog, cat, horse, gerbil, pig, giraffe, elephant, gorilla, lion, tiger, bear, or endangered mosquito, PETA would be all over this.

But unfortunately for her, she's a person, so she'll be brutally murdered in an extremely cruel manner.

I'm in favor of euthanasia. This ain't euthanasia.

Let's starve & dehydrate Mumia Jamal RFN! If it's such a lovely way to shuffle off the mortal coil.

Cordially...

I'm in your camp, Ace. It seems the obstacles are just too overwhelming at this point. In addition to the camp that believes the husband is in the "right", I believe you have a faction who think the ends justify the means (in that, Mr. Schiavo may be a scoundrel, but since she's "brain dead" - , his motivations do not matter and the morality of the situation is immaterial.) It's very sad, and I will be praying for the FAMILY. Not the "banging another woman" husband.

Yeah, painless and gentle. Good enough for Terri, more than good enough for Mumia.

Ace--

Didya see the Terri Schiavo FAQ at Football Fans for Truth?

http://www.footballfansfortruth.us/archives/000872.html

Lot of interesting things in there that run contrary to some of the public positions taken by those arguing against Terri's death.

I'm not sure what to think anymore. . .

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Let's start a list, including:

1) Richard Allen Davis, rapist/murderer of Polly Klass.
2) Scott Peterson, murderer of wife and infant son.

Hold on. "Too many people seem to want this poor woman dead"? That sounds like the anti-war protesters saying "Oh well. Too many neocons want our soldiers dead."

Noone "wants" Terry Schiavo dead, but there are larger issues at stake. I find it amazing that the President, Republicans in Congress, conservative commentators at the NRO and elsewhere have wasted no time abandoning their principles of federalism and the rule of law to save this woman. Now I agree that there might be very good reasons to throw principles aside for the "right to life," but at least be intellectually honest enough to say: "there are no federal issues as stake. That was a ruse to put the feeding tube back in. Judicial restraint is fine as long as it applys to the other guy."

The federal district court and appleate panel saw through the smokescreen. This case is a tradegy that became farce. Terry may die now, but her death would not be in vain if we take the proper steps to prevent this situation (to the maximum extent possible) in the future.

As for me, it is clear the conservative right is just as guilty as the liberal left in abandoning principles when the situation moves them.

Ace, you're always a defeatist. In this case, however, you may be right.

Steve, my principle of federalism comes behind my principle of don't kill innocent people. I realize that makes me a right-wing ideologue in some books, but consider this: the state has signed a death warrant. It deprived Terri of her due process rights. SINCE WE HAVE A FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT that applies to the states, I'm all for the feds stepping in to prevent an abuse of state power.

I'm a federalist but I'm also nervous about power of The State--be that Florida, USA, or Iran--to kill the inconvenient. This case is about checking that power.

About time Jeb used those balls as something more than ornaments. If a guy is going to get impeached for actions taken while in office, I would say using force to prevent a woman from being starved to death is definitely a good cause.

As far as whether their are federal rights at issue, I would say there are a considerable number of them. The right to medical care. The right not to be tortured to death. The right to a fair adjudication of your situation. Congress weighs in every single damned day on behalf of individual people and passes legislation pretty frequently to give relief to people. All part of the right to petition for redress of grievances. Don't tell me that McCain Feingold prevents that kind of free speech, too!

I hate the evil we are seeing at work in Florida.

the FAQ mentioned earlier is a good resource for this debate, helps seperate some of the emotion and manipulation of facts seen in the media

Dave,

I posted this last night, I'll re-post:

According to FFT:

"Michael did not get to make the decision - he petitioned the courts to make Terri a ward of the court - the court then heard testimony from him, the parents, Terri's friends et al and the court decided that Terri would not wish to continue.

I've heard this quite a bit, and I'm not picking on anyone, but if Michael asked the court to make the decision, then testified that Terri told him blah blah blah, what outcome do you think he was looking for?

This is a motion by Michael's lawyers to block the deposition of seven witnesses - three that would testify regarding her medical treatment wishes, three expert witnesses who would testify regarding her medical condition, and one "identified as being the person with whom Mr. Schiavo lives."

http://www.terrisfight.org/documents/motprotorder112503.pdf

Lawyers will be lawyers, but it doesn't sound like Michael's attorneys were willing to just let the court hear what everyone had to say - they had an agenda. They wanted a particular outcome.

As for the claim that Michael was willing to donate any proceeds to charity - the Football Fans for Truth post says:

"Michael Schiavo offered to give the $700,000 to charity to assure the parents that he wasn't acting out of financial motives. The parents turned it down."

Look at this letter:

http://www.terrisfight.org/downloads/charity.jpg

Michael's offer was to donate the net proceeds of of Terri's estate to charity if her parents withdrew their objection to Terri's being denied food and water. The offer stood for ten days.

I'm not surprised they "turned it down."

And while I see a lot of people touting the Wolfson Report (I've already posted the problems I have with the author's apparent lack of objectivity), and pointing out that Wolfson was appointed by Jeb Bush, I've yet to see anyone include Bush's response:

http://sun6.dms.state.fl.us/eog_new/eog/library/releases/2003/December/litems-report_12-2-03.html

"That Dr. Wolfson recognizes the continued need for an independent third party Guardian Ad Litem is encouraging, as is his recommendation that Mrs. Schiavo undergo swallowing tests and therapy. Based on this third party analysis, I am hopeful that Mr. Schiavo and his attorney will no longer prevent this vital testing from taking place."

Taken as a whole, however, I am concerned that too many open questions still remain. Chief among them is the issue of Mrs. Schiavo’s wishes, and whether or not there is clear and convincing evidence as to what those wishes were. The current court proceedings have not addressed this issue, or her current guardian’s conflicts of interest, nor have I been given the opportunity to develop evidence, or test the accuracy of Mr. Schiavo’s assertions on this matter.

“I am also concerned we do not know the expertise of the individuals who provided the ‘answers’ to the questions that are addressed in the report. I am sure that Dr. Wolfson, who indicated his reliance on ‘good science-based medicine,’ understands the importance of knowing which good scientists and good doctors he relied on to reach certain conclusions."

Mr. Schiavo and his attorney never did allow the vital testing he mentioned, or provide the answers regarding the "expertise of the individuals who provided answers" to questions in the report.

NOTE: Cal says they did allow the swallowing test. I believe it was BrewFan who pointed out the the MRI and PET are the critical tests, inability to swallow doesn't make you PVS.

I also encourage you to look at the touted Wolfson Report, which is supposed to be 'factual' and 'impartial'. Just read the forst few pages, esp, the 'Historic Facts'.

Cal also says that Michael has no control over the trust fund, but in the letter above, he says *he* will donate the net proceeds to charity *if* Terri's parent withdraw their objection to the removal of the feeding tube.

I don't think this will go as quietly as some will expect- this recent development with the Schindler's go back for an en banc trial at the 11th Circuit gives a better chance that more judges will see it the Schindlers way than anything else. If anything, the feeding tube could be ordered reinserted until they can render a decision.

No one "wants" Terri Shiavo dead.

Er, Steve, someone - Michael Shiavo, just as a f'rinstance - definitely wants Terri Shiavo dead.

"I find it amazing that the President, Republicans in Congress, conservative commentators at the NRO and elsewhere have wasted no time abandoning their principles of federalism and the rule of law to save this woman."

I find it even more amazing that idiots like Steve can't understand that the President and Republicans in Congress want government (in particular, the judge who ordered Terri's starvation, over the pleas of every blood relative she's ever had, including her brother, her sister, her mother and her father) to STAY THE FUCK OUT of Terri's life.

That is classic conservative principle numero uno- rein in an overreaching government, who wants to decide who is allowed to live and who isn't.

It figures that as soon as I say something about the appeal before the 11th Circuit Court (again), they rule against doing an en banc trial. Now the Schindlers are going to have to try and get this before the SCOTUS. Bah.

Name calling. Nice. Dogstar, you proved my point. As long as you approve government intervention it is fine. But it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

Having read the history (including the guardian ad litem's report), I just don't see a due process question here. After 19 Florida judges and now 4 on the federal bench have reviewed this, how can you take about due process.

This is a highly emotional case as evidenced by the personal attcks and smear campaign against Michael Schiavo. The Schindlers are faced with the loss of their child, so they will do anything and everything to prevent that, which is understandable and natural. I am just not sure that this is the set of circumstancesthat warrants throwing away judicial restraint and setting a precedent for the future..

There are 10,000s of people just like Terry, there are more dying of cancer and Alzheimer's and other conditions that involve a slow, painful death. I really do not want Terry to die this way, but what distinguishes her case from the others? Tthe bitter battle between the husband and the parents and the media attention?

This will not end well under any circumstances.

In the Clinton years we had:

Waco
Ruby Ridge
Elian

Were any of those more justified than helping Terri Schiavo?

We do not live in a judiciacracy. Two branches of gov't should outweigh one.

Thank you Ace. I'm sorry, I must've missed your comments last night.

All things considered, I believe my contribution to this debate has pretty much come to a close. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not an ethicist, and I'm not Michael or Terri Schiavo.

Like anyone following this case, I have my own gut feelings, but the confusion of the debate has outrun my eloquence. I know enough to know when to grow quiet.

Call me if you ever need to know stuff about Russian supersonic torpedos, or monkey apocalypses.

Sadly,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

See-Dubya, I am unclear what federalism has to do with not killing innocent people. I see the concern about killing the innocent, but this is much more like the abortion debate then a due process issue. I see the same arguments from the abortions rights crowd as the "left the ruling stand" crowd (of which I am one), that there are "greater principles at stake." (just because I make the argument does not mean I have to like the argument.

Dianna, say Michale "wants her dead" is incorrect and an awful simplification of the facts. For Michael, I am sure that this has gone way beyond what he wants. (What he wants is things the way they were.) This is the legal machinery at work.

Read the FFT FAQs. They really put things in perspective.

"As long as you approve government intervention it is fine. But it isn't. You can't have it both ways."

You still can't seem to wrap your mind around this very simple concept:

The government (in the form of a judge) ordered her death.

Conservatives want government out of the process. How do they do that? By legislating a more restrictive role for government.

Nothing whatsoever in this case is "government intervention". It is government restriction. Nobody wants government to step in and change any aspect of Terri's life.

They only want to remove the government-imposed restriction on her access to food and water.

Conservatism, pure and simple.

My child asked me, "how come they kill bad guys with a shot (lethal injection), but they are making that lady to starve to death? How come they can't just do it quickly so she doesn't suffer?"

Sometimes it is very hard to be the parental representative of right, might and The American Way.

My answer felt very lame. The answer should have been "well, that is what the lady wanted" .. but there is no proof that this is the case.

I too feel like this whole last-minute shuffle from court to court to state to federal government is just a last twitch before they murder her.

sick sick sick

Oops - sorry, Dave, that was me. Forgot to sign the entry.

Dammit John-- I should've known that Ace wouldn't tolerate such loose shit as an unsigned comment post.

Your cunning attempt at trickery has failed, my friend.

Steve,

You said:

"There are 10,000s of people just like Terry, there are more dying of cancer and Alzheimer's and other conditions that involve a slow, painful death"

Yes, there are 10,000s of people just like Terry. They're called mentally handicapped people.

Do you have anyone close to you with a severe mental handicap. I don't know you, but I'll gues you don't. If you did, you wouln't lump them in with people who are "dying of cancer and Alzheimer's and other conditions that involve a slow, painful death."

I've said before that there is one demographic that I can virtually guarantee would never say they "wouldn't want to live like Terri", (acording to you and the quote on your site from "Derb"):

Finally, the Derb again. One quick thought: how come everyone's response seems to be "I would not want to live like that?" Yet, when it comes to Terry Schiavo those same people do not have a problem with HER living like that.

That's not "everyone's" response. Show me one person with a mentally handicapped loved one who's said that. That's a statement made by people who know little to nothing about how those people live or how they feel.

Terri's appearance and actions are very much like many people with Cerebral Palsy or similar physical handicaps, and she's very much like a lot of mentally handicapped people.

That's why I don't think there should be any "debate" (and I'm sick of that fucking word regarding a woman's life) about whether or not she'll "recover" or "improve". She does not have to "recover" in order to be allowed to live.

You also say:

Just One More Test. This is the most transparent of the claims – that all they want is one more test. Bull. This is a bigger struggle – a “right to life” struggle. Unlike Roe v. Wade, this is a right to life case that can be won because the outcome has not been set by the courts. Kathryn Lopez, bless her heart, at least is honest about the right to life principle.

Bullshit. I'm not a pro-lifer, and I support documented right-to-die wishes. I don't have a horse in that race.

This is my last comment on this topic. Not because I don't care any more, its because it makes me profoundly sad and I'm tired. Its sad, of course, because Terri is dying a gruesome death but its also sad because somehow many who comment here (and I'm assuming they represent some proportionate segment of America) have forgotten that the purpose of the law (including due process) is to serve justice and it is not an end in and of itself.

To Terri,
The Lord bless you and keep you; The Lord make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you; The Lord turn his face toward you and give you peace. Now and forever.

Not to belabor the obvious, but the position of the husband and those of us who support his decision is that for all practical purposes, she already is dead. So it's not so much a matter of wanting to kill her as it is in recognzing what's already happened.

I would accept the following, however: if God can be convinced that a miracle is in order, and He makes her jump out of bed and yell "get me a cheeseburger, dammit" I'll graciously acceed to the Higher Power and reverse my position.

BTW, the courts are involved in this matter because the parents took the dispute to them and asked for it to be settled. Settling disputes is one of the legitimate functions of government, and while we don't always get the outcome we desire, we are entitled to a hearing at some level. They've had that hearing, and the matter is settled.

The recourse for people who don't like the outcome is to change the laws that apply to cases like this one; not just this case, but all end-of-life decisions. So get cracking, there are 35,000 other Terri Schiavos in this country just as worthy of your concern as this one.

Steve, you're missing my point. Michael Shiavo could have withdrawn from this years ago, and left Terri Shiavo in her parents' care. Even if he thought, years ago, that this was the last thing he could do for his wife, if he is convinced that she's "really" gone, the concern should be with the living - and that would Terri's parents and siblings. If what's left of Terri Shiavo isn't suffering, and it makes her family feel better, then Michael Shiavo should have surrendered her to them.

So, no matter how we try to avoid judging him badly, he wants Terri Shiavo dead. That feeding tube was not pulled by Judge Greer, or on his orders. Terri Shiavo is being dehydrated and starved by Michael Shiavo, no one else.

Michael Shiavo wants Terri Shiavo dead.

His motives, benign or otherwise, cannot take that fact out of play. Sorry.

As for whether someone ought to intervene, I honestly haven't the least. I wish someone could talk Michael Shiavo into changing his mind more than anything else.

Dicky,

I was going to comment that you are the lowest form of carbon based life form I've ever encountered. I was going to add that you are so low down the food chain that you have probably blown your daddy to make enough money to pork your mom. But then I thought, no, there's still cedarford. So, my assholish friend, you remain number 2 - literally and figuratively.

John from WuzzaDem. You make an interesting point about my perspective - I do not see Terry Schiavo as a mentally handi-capped person, I see her as terminally ill and being kept alive by artifical means.

There is a big difference in my mind.

We (all of us) come at this with different personal baggage. I (thankfully) do not have a close relative who is severely, mentally handi-capped, but just watch a loved one die - slowly - of cancer. (Truth be told, in a manner not disimilar, so don't lecture me.) My loved one's wishes were clear. There came a point when enough was enough. As you mentioned, I do believe that is the honest position of the majority of people, and I am not sure why it is so unbelievable that it was Terry Schiavo's position also.

As for the point on my blog about "just one more test," I do not believe that that the argument (made in several of the conservative blogs) about that one more test would convince them to pull the tube is an honest one. K-Lo from NRO has been absolutely up front about her position and I admire the honesty - a quality that is not in abundant supply in this debate.

As for the term "debate," this is certainly one. If it were up to me, I would keep her alive. But a process has been followed and reviewed exhaustively and found to be proper. The debate is do we respect the process or not.

I guess you can ask is the process worthy of respect? I think so, but many respectfully (or not) disagree.

I do not see Terry Schiavo as a mentally handi-capped person, I see her as terminally ill and being kept alive by artifical means.

Steve,

That makes debating (I said it again) this issue very difficult, to say the least. Since a lot odf people who suffer brain damage lose the ability to perform many simple motor function, such as swallowing, I don't consider the tube they're using to feed her to be life support.

And I don't know how you could possibly consider her to be terminally ill. She's dying because she's not being fed.

I had a loved one die of leukemia, I would never lecture anyone about that subject. I will say that, like my sister, people with terminal illnesses will refuse food as their body shuts down. That's not what's happening with Terri.

About the pro-life comment you made, you still use the term "them" - I'm not "them", and I know a lot of other people who feel the same way who are also not "pro-life", and who have no problem with right-to-die wishes.

"'if her parents withdrew their objection to Terri's being denied food and water. "

Um. Yeah. Obviously. He was offering to donate the money he got after Terri died. He was demonstrating that he was not after the money from her death by giving them assurances of what would be done with the money.

"I've heard this quite a bit, and I'm not picking on anyone, but if Michael asked the court to make the decision, then testified that Terri told him blah blah blah, what outcome do you think he was looking for?"

Presumably, he wanted the court to accept his word as to his wife's wishes. However, he didn't try to make the decision himself, but rather gave the parents the opportunity to put on their case and argue the alternative.

The real issue here is that many people assume that the courts have "cleared the way" for Michael to do what he wants. That's not the case at all. The court has decided that Terri Schiavo has a constitutional right to die, which it has decided is what she wanted. Michael Schiavo can't stop it. Yes, he agrees with the action--but if he didn't, it wouldn't matter.

"Chief among them is the issue of Mrs. Schiavo’s wishes, and whether or not there is clear and convincing evidence as to what those wishes were. The current court proceedings have not addressed this issue, or her current guardian’s conflicts of interest, nor have I been given the opportunity to develop evidence, or test the accuracy of Mr. Schiavo’s assertions on this matter."

This isn't quoted, but Jeb Bush said this? But the "current court proceedings" didn't have to go into that because the subject of Terri's wishes had already been settled by a trial that was upheld by both the appellate and Florida Supreme Court. Governor Bush is welcome to disagree with the verdict, but he's wrong to say that the conflict of interest and Terri's wishes hadn't been addressed. That's absurd.

"Mr. Schiavo and his attorney never did allow the vital testing he mentioned, or provide the answers regarding the "expertise of the individuals who provided answers" to questions in the report."

This, too, is Governor Bush? That's untrue, if so. Wolfson suggested the swallow test as a means of brokering a deal. He felt there needed to be closure. It wasn't Schiavo that balked, but the Schindlers. They had to agree to drop any objections to Terri Schiavo's death if she failed the swallow test, and they refused.

I'm glad some people posting here found the FAQ helpful. Steve and a few others, thanks for the link. I'm not a member of blogspot so I couldn't post there to say so.

Oh, and one other thing: It gets old to be told that support for the law equates to "wanting Terri Schiavo dead", but certainly posters here aren't the only ones doing that. Why, Jon Last told me the same thing this morning.

"I would accept the following, however: if God can be convinced that a miracle is in order, and He makes her jump out of bed and yell "get me a cheeseburger, dammit" I'll graciously acceed to the Higher Power and reverse my position."

What really has my blood pressure skyrocketing are idiots who push their own agenda in asserting Terry should die. WTF?!

The implication that everyone who wishes that the judiciary would look into this matter more closely is a bible thumping right-to lifer is frankly insulting and a simplistic avoidance of the real facts of the outrage over the current situation. A child wouldn't have fallen for that one.

Richard, my friend, how dare any single one of us assume that it was indeed her wish to die - to not live as a mentally handicapped person ( You GO John from WuzzaDem!!!!!). Michael Sciavo is not exactly an unimpeachable source.

You owe us an apology. If you're looking for idiots to preach at, look homeward angel!

John from WuzzaDem

Seconded! Well put; I'm not some wild-eyed pro-lifer, either, and I have no problem with 'right to die'. I am just revolted by this method when her wishes are not at all clear.

Shooting her in the head would be kinder than this.

oh yeah .. excuse the dangling preposition. Too angry presently to think about fixing it ..

The more you read, the less credible the Schindlers, their witnesses, and their Right to Life handlers appear to be.

That Carla Sauer Iyer who claimed all the stuff about M Schiavo turned out to be a real piece of work on closer examination.

Fired from a couple nursing home jobs for poor patient care. Claiming that she saw M Schiavo trying to kill T Schiavo with an insulin injection. Along with the "Is that bitch dead yet?" claim denied by all of Iyer's co-workers. Her claims that Terri regularly talked to her. What really tripped her up was her 2003 claim that she had made daily, unauthorized calls to the Schindlers back in 1995-96 to alert them to all of M Schiavo's actions and Terris daily condition. As the Schindlers never mentioned anything about Iyer in past depositions - so when asked about it in 2003, even the Schindlers were forced to say Iyer was a lying psychotic sack of shit.

The Schindlers appear to be lying or delusional about claims of Terri actively relating with others and routinely displays cognitive function. Many of the claims they make in the media about M Schiavo are claims they denied while under oath in court testimony.

Steve:

We are all "terminally ill." We are all going to die. Should we all just quit eating?

Really, the term "right to die" makes no fucking sense. No one has a "right to die" -- we are all going to die and there is not a fucking thing we can do about it. That's why it is so wrong to treat life this lightly. That's why it seems that the only people who seem to get this are people who don't get hard-ons whenever someone publishes a sneer against Those RightwingReligiousNutFreaksters.

People are acting as if what happened to Terri is some awful, demonic, scifi thing that only happens in 1,000,000 years and only to people who have angered Cthulhu but I tell you it's in all our futures one way or another; we have no control on how we end, whether you believe in the God of Moses or the God of Chance, and people like Terri Schiavo are an in-your-face reminder of this and people hate and fear that, some enough so that they will do anything to destroy the reminder.

Terri is the messenger. The message is: we are not in control. We* are, in fine, traditional fashion, killing the messenger because we don't like the message.

*The "we" is humanity in general; the same humanity that that the Christians say killed God. I'm beginning to think that the Christians are right.

Oh yeah, and Cedie? A vote of "not credible" from you is like a bonus for whoever you are against today. Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't explored the Chinese Zionist Illuminati hand in all this.

You know, how come we hear things from Ceder that we hear from absolutely no one else?

Riddle me this - are there any nurses you have taken Mr. Shiavo's side in this? How come all the nurses coming forward (that I have heard) who treated her, are on the parent's side?

Cedarford is either brave or foolish because he's willing to stand up to a lynch mob here with very little support.

The vast majority of Americans see this case the way he does, by the way. Yet another poll confirmed that today, with something like 82% of Americans saying Congress' Palm Sunday Overreach was out of line.

President Bush's aproval ratings are in the low 40s now, and his Social Security reform is dead. So thanks to the pandering to the Religious Right, the retirement security of millions of Americans is now in jeopardy.

Thanks to all of you who made that possible.

Karaoke night at Michael Schiavo's house

"I know you've heard this one before, honey, but the kids love it....is this thing on? OK, here goes...I'll try not to break into maniacal laughter this time, I promise...OK, cue music...

When you were young and your heart was an open book
You used to say live and let live
(you know you did you know you did you know you did)

But if this ever-changing world in which we live in
Makes you give in and...snort...stop the tape....sorry...I can't get past that part without laughing...try again? Kids? Listen to daddy sing. Yes, or else. Here goes, rewind a few....

But if this ever-changing world in which we live in
Makes you give and......cry

Say live and let die

The polls mystify me. I live in Democrat Country here in Massachusetts and the folks I have spoken with support additional review of the case - as far as the medical diagnosis of PVS and the statements of Michael Schiavo as to Terry's wishes. These *are* folks who believe in "right-to-die".

The polls are nearly as mystifying as Richard's harping on the religious right. Perhaps he was abused by a Priest or something sometime in the distant past?

Dicky,

These approval ratings?

Do you want to provide some links to back up your other assertions?

Here you go, little fella:

An overwhelming 82 percent of the public believes the Congress and President should stay out of the matter.

Just 13 percent of those polled think Congress intervened in the case out of concern for Schiavo, while 74 percent think it was all about politics. Of those polled, 66 percent said the tube should not be inserted compared to 27 percent who want it restored. The issue has generated strong feelings, with 78 percent of those polled -- wheter for either side of the issue -- saying they have strong feelings.

Public approval of Congress has suffered as a result; at 34 percent, it is the lowest it has been since 1997, dropping from 41 percent last month. Now at 43 percent, President Bush’s approval rating is also lower than it was a month ago.

Link.

You quoted a tracking poll.

Why does it matter whether or not it was motivated by politics? What on earth can Congress ever on any topic that is not?

I see Mr Bennett has joined the church of the Great God Poll. It's a sad thing when a mind goes under like that.

ArrMatey" cruel... but only to be even more cruel. Excellent.

Sigh. That was supposed to be a semicolon, not a quote mark, after "ArrMatey." Stupiddrunkwhorewoman that I am.

I am signing off ladies and gents. Thank you for your consideration. Some parting points.

Touche, Andrea, but we are all terminal, but not terminally ill. And you lost me with the "messenger" meme. I truly don't see Terry as a messenger or symbol or anything other then a woman who has been through (and is in) tragic circumstances.

I won't argue with the "right to lifers," because I consider myself one. I have accepted the outcome because I believe the process has been thorough and fair and, though I don't agree with the results, I respect them. I hope when the outcome is something I agree with, those who don't will respect that also.

I have avoided areas, such as the shameful slander of Micheal Schiavo, where I fear I would have sounded more like Cedar then I would like. Schiavo doesn't need any trust money because a half decent lawyer will win numerous libel suits. (e.g., Patricia Heaton on Entertainment Tonight.)

In arguing for the "process," you can come off sounding cold. And the sterility of the comments sections doesn't help.

As for the debate, it has been more civil then most I have been a part of on passionate topics (say Andrea Yates). If I have inadvertently offended anyone, accept my apologies.

Regards,

If I have inadvertently offended anyone, accept my apologies, because I meant to offend you advertantly.

Thanks, Steve! Thanks for saying fuck-all! (What I mean by that is: you haven't said anything meaningful; in fact you've mouthed a bunch of platitudes. I hope they comfort you in the cold night.)

Andrea, why are you such a bitch?

"Andrea, why are you such a bitch?" Dickless benett

You act as if its andrea's fault that your are a repugnant piece of shit. I come here to read actual thoughtful debate, not to listen to some mindless hack who has the ability to channel Ted Kennedy's fat ass. Take your man servant Cedertroll and find a place where regurgetated liberal agenda is seen as fact; here you'll only get your ass kicked repeatedly.

...But something tells me you like getting proven wrong ALLTHE TIME.

Cheers,
The son of America

There you are, Andrea, el hijo de la puta is standing up for you honor. If I prod you again, he's probably going to challenge me to a duel or something.

You must be very proud, you delicate flower of Southern womanhood.

Jeez, people.

Andrea's my ole buddy from way back, CW. Don't pee yourself.

"You quoted a tracking poll."

What a genius you are! You talk about presidential approval ratings and I link a tracking poll. Of course you used a snapshot that means absolutely nothing, but thats ok because in the brief time you've been here we've come to expect no less. What you didn't provide was any links to support "So thanks to the pandering to the Religious Right, the retirement security of millions of Americans is now in jeopardy" which of course you can't do because its a result of your overactive moonbat imagination.

Richard, you had me at "good-bye."

Bennett -

They just can't believe the country isn't behind them, Dick. Folks like SpewFan either dismiss the polls, or say the polls are just meaningless tyranny over those with a noble cause. (SpewFan flips on that - one day he will demand you research all the links for him - next day, he will be in a "so what" "polls are stupid", mood.)

The Religious Right sliming of Michael Schiavo will have long-term repercussions, as it generates a new area of fear of religious politics - that the Right to Lifers will go after any guardian if it furthers their politics. But the lies the Religious Right has spread, the Schindlers, and little pawns like the preposterous Carla Iyer and Wendy Hall are easily debunkable.

The damage to Republicans I think will be high. They just blew past States Rights and Federalism to pander to the Thumpers. Bush, in his dumbest stunt since announcing a trillion-dollar Man to Mars Program without talking to anyone in Congress - decided to take a Midnight Bootlicking Special Flight from Crawford to DC - his spokesman said that time was so precious he couldn't just sign a FAX'd copy...no, that would have cost a few precious minutes - and Bush - "Would rather err on the side of life" - that was repeated 18,19 times as Bush's buzzword phrase of the night.

No, Bush wasn't grandstanding, no siree!!

For Chris'sake a woman's life was on the line! And 7 years of due process was an unacceptable "rush".

This is the same President that wasn't even putting out a message for 4 days from his last Crawford vacation, let alone flying anywhere, after the greatest natural disaster of the last 100 years, the Dec 26th Tsunami - with hundreds of Americans dead, missing, struggling to make it back out of chaos to America.

And we have Tom Delay wanting this to go on so the ethics bit maybe can die down some. Republican doctors like Dave Weldon and Bill Frist who claim they can diagnosis PVS or the lack thereof - as MDs - just from watching a minute of videotape. (Frist can kiss his Presidential bid goodbye - by ass kissing Operation Rescue - he looked stupid on a national stage.

On page 31 of the Wolfson report (the "Guardian Ad Litem" appointed under "Terri's Law" in Fla) , there is a note that Terri said 'No' at one point during physical therapy, but that this never recurred. I'm not a doctor, but I'm pretty sure that saying 'No' would not generally be considered a reflex. I also read in a Reuters report that the chance for survival of [of a PVS patient] greater than 15 years is approximately 1 in 15,000 to 1 in 75,000.

There is also additional info regarding Terri's diagnosis in the affidavit filed today by a board-certified neurologist, Dr. Cheshire, who believes Terri is not PVS (or even PVR), but is in a Minimally Conscious State, a relatively new option for diagnosing patients with severe cognitive impairment (or something like that).

The big question is why the rush to let Terri die. People who want to let her die can always do that later. But what happens if we do as some suggest and let Terri die, then do an autopsy to verify the PVS diagnosis? What if it doesn't confirm but in fact does the opposite? Somehow, "oops, guess we were wrong" would come across as a little shallow.

Here's a wild thought:

First, watch this video. It's only 44 seconds long, so it shouldn't take up too much of your day.

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ccb/videos/Terri_Big_Eyes.rm

Notice that a specific verbal command is generated to Terri ("Open Your Eyes"). Then, notice that, after struggling for a few seconds (undoubtedly, a shorter timespan than Dickie or Cedarford would need, if they were put to the same test), she complies.

Let me repeat, for those who can't tear themselves away from the latest national poll about whether or not this worthless bitch needs to be starved to death:

Step One: Ask Terri to open her eyes...

Step Two: Watch as she complies.

Now, why in the hell can't anyone grow the balls sufficient to make the following statement:

If the bitch can open her eyes when asked, couldn't she also open her eyes if asked to open them for life, or close them for death?

In other words- we've just proven Terri can answer a question, when asked.

Why the fuck not ASK HER THE QUESTION?

Polls mean little in the face of bogus information. Had I not spent days researching what the real story was, I'd feel the same way.

The poll results just indicate the MSM has waged a very effective public brainwashing campaign.

The PTB will never ask THAT question because they don't want to hear the answer.

Hubby would fight tooth and nail (and has) against trying any mode of communication. If one were attempted and attained she probably has things to say that would land him in prison for the rest of his natural life.

I can't say I give a toss if the rest of the country is "behind me" or not; following the whirling standard 100% of the time is for fools. Still doesn't mean I can't question the knowledge behind these polls; for example, if I had no knowledge of this case and was asked by ABC whether a "woman on life support" (which to me suggests ventilators, not feeding tubes) who had "expressed her wish to die" (which assumes that the triumvirate of Schiavo, his brother and sister-in-law were telling the truth, and that Terri's other friends were not) should be allowed to die, I'd say sure, if she had really consented to having her feeding tube pulled and knew what it entailed. Not something I'd do myself, but I'm not going to tie her hands and keep her alive if she's clinically dead anyway and the only reason her organs are working is because a ventilator is forcing them to.

This case is just a little more ambiguous than that. It's interesting that Mickey Kaus (noted right-wing conspirator) is criticizing the polls as well on his site.

Andrea, I am sorry to have disappointed you. Unfortunately, I do not have a magic wand or a bottle of St. Rémy Napolean Brandy to make things all better.

We simply disagree, probably not as much as you believe, but we do.

"Comments" sections are funny things. Usually, all that is meaningful is said very fast and the rest is vitriol and name calling. Instead of acting like guests in Ace's house, we have blog-rage. (I did not notice, has any refered to Richard as a Nazi yet?)

Of course, I have never been a guest in Ace's house...

Of course we haven't referred to Dicky as a Nazi. That's what people do at his blog not here. Also, I think it requires a modicum of intelligence to be a Nazi which disqualifies Dicky.

Ah, "we simply disagree." I think I'll have that printed on a t-shirt.

It beats the current Ace of Spades Comment Army motto: "It's the man's fault."

You just need to let Jesus into your heart, Richard. Then everything else will fall into place.

Feel the love. Put your hand on the tv set and feel the warmth of the healing power of love. Praise the lord and pass the reefer.