And, as we all know, Ralph Nader slices like an f'in hammer when it comes to activism. An interesting development.

Interesting, but too late.

I don't know. I think Nader has said both "Christian" and "Life" before, therefore his opinions are without merit.

Similarly, it has become abundantly clear that physicians who possess a religious affiliation are quacks and their opinions are without merit.

Another noted Republican Pro-Lifer comes out for Terri.

"LANNY DAVIS thinks we should err on the side of life! He also asks why Terri Schiavo's husband is "fighting so hard" for her death. He just made some comments on O'Reilly's show."
--via PowerPundit 03/23

It's been interesting to see how opinions on this case have cut across the usual Republican/Democrat, liberal/conservative lines. One of the few positive aspects of a tragic story. Ralph's comment about the courts "imposing process over justice" sums up my own feelings on the matter.

This case like no other I have ever seen has caused the strangest bedfellows imaginable, on both sides. I never in my wildest dreams thought I would one day hear left-wingers expounding on the virtues of federalism, or right-wingers consenting to have a woman put to death by the word of a court.

I'm wondering how Cedarford is going to explain Ralph's sudden mental enslavement to Randall Terry and Religious Right.

I don't know who pisses me off more, liberals or liberatarians, regarding the Schiavo matter.

Libs one way or another.

HP,

You know who piss me off? Liberatarian-leaning bloggers and writers (no names) who sort of praise themselves for their own indifference to this case, and make sport out of anyone who has an opinion about it.

I hate that kind of smug, too-cool-for-school attitude about issues, especially ones of life and death import.

Yes, kind of like refusing to play in a game but being happy to kibitz and tell everyone what they're doing wrong. Except involving life and death and all that stuff.

The attitude of some bloggers on the Schiavo case has reminded me of some of the Dems who clearly didn't give a rat's ass about the treatment of women under the Taliban, or kids getting flogged in Iran, et cetera ad nauseam. If your political views suggest that rock-bottom issues aren't worth caring about, then what's the freakin' point? Some people I had a lot of respect for have come off looking pretty shallow on this one.

Sonetka: Nader is Jewish and a fan of big government. Sharon winds him up and tells him to go play with Terry and the Pope and accelerate the death of federalism. Nader already did a number on the American automotive industry, and continues to advocate for Green causes, clearing the way for inexpensive Chinese rickshaw manufacturers to corner the low-emission market and throw our kids into debt for years. I'm not surprised you RTL zealots couldn't see the Pope-Jew-Holy Roller alliance at work. I've read a paper on this at Lyndon Larouche's site, but you'll have to find the link yourself.

Time is short--the History Channel has a piece on Hitler's Last Days and I want to make sure the TiVo gets it--I always cry when Eva dies, but unlike a certain silly girl in Florida she stepped up and offed herself like a real man. So, in the interest of brevity:

Vegetable. Liquified. Zionist. Spanking. Lebensraum.

Ace-
I know you are trying to remain civil. But, without saying names, Bill from INDC, oops; liberatarians are the apple martini drinkers of the right.

As far as I am concerned.

Though I disagree with most of what Bill from InDC has had to say on this topic, at least he stepped up and had an opinion. Some other notable libertarian types were out to instalunch on this one.

Ace, I'll go further than you on the whole "too cool for school libertarians" point.

I'm not sure which is worse, a certain new internet radio personalities snide callousness, or a certain Insta blogger who has ignored the story altogether.

I think that gets to a core problem with "libertarianism" in general: when you build a political ideology around believing in practically nothing (or, in the alternative, believing in very little of something) you end up standing for very little in return.

Hollow philosophies built on hollow priorities yield hollow results.

But, hey, libertarians. Keep fighting the good fight for the really important "life or death" issues like getting pot legalized. If Ms. Schiavo had a case of the munchies, would you argue she should be fed then?

Stop bashing libertarians... I am one, and I've been unambiguously in support of keeping Terri Schiavo alive. This is less about political philosophy and more about whether one is willing to take a court's word over the truth that is evident from examination by one's own eyes.

Thoughtomator-

I am sorry if you take offense, but the liberatarian column as aligned themselves with the hard left on the Schiavo matter.

It's the harsh truth.

But, I suppose Federalism and the ever glorious Judicial system- lets all libs sleep well at night.

(sarcasm off)

Ace, you must mean a certain Tennessee law prof.

I've stopped reading him. Though obviously you, as a Major Blog Proprietor, don't have that luxury.

Pseudarford: Genius!

Hmmph. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing libertarian at all about an indifference to the liberty upon which all others are predicated - the right to life. It's "Live Free or Die", not "Live Free and Die already, b*tch".

Amen

I think I said it best in my latest article "Conservatives in Bed with Barney Frank"
Scary and disturbing thought, nonetheless true.

Wow. Lockstep much?

People must all feel the same way about this case. They must blog incessantly about it. They must feeeeeeeeeeeeel the same way as you all do (because god knows most of the comments I've seen on this subject here haven't involved thought). And if they don't toe that line, by god, they're scum.

But it's those other guys who demand conformity.

And Ace, what on earth deludes you into thinking that the courts would respond differently if Nader had spoken up sooner?

I've read a lot of comments and posts on this and sort of thought I might as well weigh in, not that anyone cares, but at least so I can rid myself of feeling I kept my mouth shut while the lead was flyin. (Sorry if I go long here, probably won't comment again on this)

The intellectual libertarian in me demands logical consistency. I've raged at the court's and the left's poorly veiled transformation of the law and our constitution into what their conscience says it must be, seethed as they circumvented the rule of law and replaced it with the rule of man - 9 wise, learned kings, moral men, but men nonetheless. You can't expect people who feel this burning outrage to suddenly switch and say, OK, here is a moral outrage so great, so wrong, we must substitute our moral sentiments, our wills for that of law. No, they'd say, those are exactly the arguments that have been used behind closed doors by the left that have made those 9 men into our kings. It's a huge leap, and I don't begrudge them for refusing to take it. They have iron convicitons and I truly believe many are sad Terri must be sacrificed to that cause.

Then there are those who usually believe the above, but feel this is the breaking point. Logical consistency must fall here to a greater good. (some of the other posters may note that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds) A human life hangs in the balance and between law and life, law must always lose out. After all, if law doesn't exist to protect that, what is the point of having law? Our law and Constitution is many great things, but it is not a death pact (someone said something like that once, but not really.)

Anyway, must logical constency and faith in law always trump our moral intuition or what we strongly feel to be the right thing? Thomas More, somewhat of a hero to me after I saw 'A man for all Seasons' as a kid, gave a wonderful speach in that movie and taught me yes, it must. "and when the devil turns on you, after you've chopped down all the laws...." and all that. Damn, I know he's right. I know it. I know it.

Other heros (Rosa Parks, MLK) taught me that the law is nothing if it is not just. In fact, I have a moral duty to violate it. And I know they're right. Not sure of my history, but I suspect, knowing the Germans, Auschwitz was perfectly legal (with the requisite forms in triplicate)

Really, what do I believe? I believe the Law is wrong here, it must fall. Men must rise up and do what is just by non-violent means. And I believe we are wrong do so, because we've substitied our will for law and ripped apart the thing that protects us from each other. Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

I normally hate 'both sides are right/both side are wrong' cop outs. But I know what I'd do if I were a judge, and I know what I'd do if I was Terri's doctor. And they are not the same. Just saying I see both sides here because both sides exist in me (they're sort of fighting it out, medevil seige style, north of my stomach). Both sides are acting in good conscience and I can't fault anyone I normally read for their conscience and I can't even fault them for wishing it'd all go away. That's all.

Is that good FootBallFanForFullofCrap?

I think some Lefties are sensing that the Religious Right is digging a big hole and are happily walking them back to the pit with a "I'm with you, man!" before the "nudge" into the pit.

It hasn't helped matters that

1. Bush did his Great Grandstanding Flight on Friday, saying that every minute counted and he had to err on "the side of life" to personally wing back to DC rather than just have the Bil FAX'd to him to sign.

a. Same guy who was also in Crawford on vacation and had nothing to say for 4 days as he was busy riding and cutting brush, about the Tsunami that killed 1/4 million people. The greatest natural disaster in 100 years, with hundreds of Americans dead, missing, or scrambling to either get out or save dead family members from mass burial pits.

b. Same guy that signed legislation in Texas to mandate discontinuation of life support for the indigent if doctors thought treatment was futile -whether family members agreed or not.

c. Same guy that just found out a whole bunch of Native Americans are pissed at him because he can stop DC for one Vegetative but lacks the time to have 5 seconds to empathize with them over the carnage in Red Lake, MN.

Nice article by conservative Dr. Elisabeth Whalen, who regularly debunks junk science and junk medicine:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/032405I.html

2.5 million people die every year. Thousands of Vegetatives a week, many by getting feeding tubes pulled.

This was pure pandering to the Religious Right.

Tom Delay, unfortunately (again) for him, is rumored to have said T Schiavo was some sort of divine manifestation of God's blessing in that through his intercession - that will help free him from his own tribulations....transcripts of what he said coming out tomorrow....

Meanwhile, Dubya's back in Crawford saying...well, I tried and I'm sad (but really saying "Hey, I did all the right symbolic moves to the Religious Right, threw them the requisite red meat as 2004 election payback - but I knew the whole time even if the boobs didn't, that it was a waste of time other than for keeping the rubes in the Party".)

Cedar-
Dude- I think you meant to post that on DummocraticUnderground.

Just trying to help.

Am I wrong for being skeptical of a bunch of news releases by liberals in favor of life now that the issue seems to have come to final resolution?

[Comment deleted. One more suggestion about killing people you disagree with and you'll lose commentig privileges.]

I find it ironic that you have a crowd saying "keep the government OUT" of this issue ... when it is essentially the government (in the form of laws and litigation) that have brought this woman to being 7 -days out w/o food. This WHOLE issue is about laws and Government involvement - since Mr. Schiavo is totally standing on a "legal" leg - one totally supported by the laws (and, by extension, the Government.) I find the argument - dishonest, and callous.

You're all making the same mistake, it's not your decision to make. The husband has been scrutinized by at least 20 judges and 8 courts. When all is said and done, he is left with the decision. The courts haven't ordered 'JackSquat'. The husband is making the decisions. The courts have heard the arguments over the past 9 years and have sided with Michael. Rehashing old rumors of his motives doesn't make it so. Read the posts' at PoliBlog and get some insight into the drawn out legal fight. A fight that shouldn't have been in the courts in the first place. I would surmise this type of fight is fought hundreds of times across the U.S. in hospital rooms and living rooms. Why has this case come to the forefront? It is a personal matter and a personal decision made by related 'persons', not the courts. Nuff Said!

"This case like no other I have ever seen has caused the strangest bedfellows imaginable, on both sides."

Yes, maybe because this is the way it should be ... thinking human beings measuring the facts as they are presented, not just some kneejerk reaction based on one's political persuasion. It gives me some hope.

Good for Nader.

There are a number of questions that fail to be addressed in this debate. Most fundamental is the question of what constitutes death. The old definition of 'when someone's heart stops' is clearly wrong. So is death the irrevocable cessation of blood flow, the irrevocable cessation of brain stem activity or the irrevocable cessation of consciousness?

If blood flow, this is a very hard test to satisfy and would require that people be kept 'animated' on heart-lung machines indefinitely even after their brain had stopped.

Irrevocable cessation of brain stem activity is an incontrovertible sign of death. Nothing in the body will continue to work of its own accord once the brain stem has gone. However, if life can be regarded as having commenced before brain activity has commenced in the fetus, then it could be argued that there could be circumstances in which a person might be 'alive' notwithstanding that their brain activity has ceased.

Finally, does 'cogito ergo sum' imply 'non-cogito ergo non-sum'? If a person's cerebral cortex has shrivelled up and has been replaced by spinal fluid (as is the case with Terri), no amount of wishful thinking by Nader will bring it back. The cerebral cortex is the part of the brain that controls one's ability to think - without it, there is no consciousness. The people who follow this approach would regard Terri as having died 15 years ago and her body is a mere automaton (i.e. her brain is not merely impaired, but has ceased to function as a brain for all purposes that would distinguish a sentient being).

There is no point in demonizing people who believe the last argument. If you disagree, nothing is more potent than a cogent counter-argument.

Lewis (toddler with credit card)

In case you are all interested, Lewisinnyc left this comment in this post of mine, which I deleted and later published:

You can't kill someone who is already dead. Once someone's cerebral cortex is gone, they have permanently lost consciousness. All she is is animated flesh. She is no more alive than a chicken that runs around once its head had been chopped off. The whole debate seems like a bad reprise of the Monty Python parrot sketch. "'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!"

And yes, I am the one who called him and others like him "toddlers with credit cards." I'm so glad that some people are amused by this situation.

And I went and forgot to link to the post in question. It's rather old, and comments are closed on it.

Andrea - As you know, I am of the latter school of thought (i.e. that once there is no electrical activity in their cerebral cortex, they are no longer alive).

Perhaps the parrot sketch reference was unnecessarily incendiary, but you have consistently skirted the underlying issue of the propriety of keeping a person's body animated once the neurons stop firing.

"You know who piss me off? Liberatarian-leaning bloggers and writers (no names) who sort of praise themselves for their own indifference to this case, and make sport out of anyone who has an opinion about it.

I hate that kind of smug, too-cool-for-school attitude about issues, especially ones of life and death import."

There Ya go. This is what ive been waiting to see. I am so tired of bloggers refusing to criticize one another, out of politeness, when there are clearly defined lines of disagreement. Its always struck me as dishonest. We here in the blogospere are hear to argue and discuss and learn. Thats the whole point.

The most dishonest statements come from the bloggers who claim not to have an opinion at all. How the hell is that possible? You can have a 1,000 word post about D and D, cameras in redlights, or Miss America, but you cant choose sides on whether its right or wrong to starve a woman to death? I think they are just scared to pick sides because they dont want to lose readers. When that happens, you have sold out my friend.

Use Names. If they are honest about who they are and what they believe in these bloggers wont mind. If they are moral and intellectual cowards as they appear to be, they will start 'name calling' or maybe even stop linking to you. So what? Do whats right and let the chips fall where they may.

I have really been impressed with ho youve covered this story.

"I have really been impressed with ho youve covered this story."

HOW HOW HOW. sorry about that. Damned Dusty girl distracted me. Loose shit.

I'm not a particularly religious person, nor am I a "doctrinare" (whatever that means) conservative. But this case has galvanized me. I have no doubt that what is happening is that Schiavo is being murdered, and that the courts are sanctioning this crime. This is the end of my political quiescence on right-to-life issues.

The liberals who are not objecting to the murder on every level, in every possible venue, disgust me. It's fundamentally all about protecting their sanctified legal right to abortion on demand.

I don't care what "school of thought" you are, Lewis. As far as I can see not a whole lot of thought is involved.

Against my better judgment, I'm going to comment. For those who say things to the effect of: "this situation goes on hundreds of times across the country everyday so why is this one story news?" Well, because this situation doesn't occur hundreds of times per day. This isn't some 90 year old parent who gave his/her eldest child the responsibility to make the decision about turning off life support when the time comes. That happens all the time, and it's highly likely that several of us will have to go through this one way or another in our lives. I have a coworker who just recently had to make the decision concerning his mother and chose to turn off life support.

But this woman isn't even on life support. If a feeding tube is life support for Terri, then Taco Bell is my life support.

I suspect this story is in the news simply because the parents and husband are in such strong disagreement. If they both agreed that Terri's life should be ended, it would not be news, and, I would probably be supportive of the decision (although not the method), provided I even knew anything about it.

And while I don't wish to demonize Michael Schiavo, if I were in his shoes, I would turn custody over to the parents. What's the harm in that? I'll assume for the moment that his motives are pure and that he's doing it simply because he believes that's what she would have wanted. The problem with that is that he basically believes she's already dead, that she died 15 years ago. If that's the case, why fight so hard to end the life of someone who you think is already dead when the parents disagree and want to keep her alive? Plus, he moved on with his life. Why does he get to make decisions for his old wife, when he essentially has a new one?

And another thing: Why is it that many leftists who generally have such contempt for marriage, and have done whatever they can to undermine it as an institution, now act as if a marriage contract is signed in blood and that this woman is somehow her husband's property despite the fact that he's violated the terms of that contract?

Ok, I've rambled on enough.

Because of the chum spread by those posts @ 1:25 and 1:31, I'm kinda scared to comment here, but I am cheering some of you on.

Great post, Ace. As hard as it is, I agree.

The courts have gone too far in the steps they have taken to ensure the death of Terri Schiavo. Those of us on the other side should not make the same mistake in trying to save her.

Thanks for the ad hominem attacks Andrea, but they do not constitute an argument.

I disagree with lewisinnyc about Shiavo, but i dont think you should bring a fight from your blog over here Andrea. He made his point without attacking anyone and tried to have a sense of humor about it, so why bither attcking him? Why not just point out why you think hes wrong and leave it at that?

After all, hes not Cedarford--now theres a cocksucker.

just kiddin.

Ace, I've been a reader of your blog and others for years... I've never posted a comment here, but I'm going to do so now (I've also weighed in on a couple of my other bookmarked blogs, notably PW and CQ).

I think Terri probably didn't want to live like she is, and that's been drowned out in the din this case has generated, largely because of her parents. I don't doubt their love for her, but they have waged a media campaign to impose their desires on this process, and it's wrong. They are subordinating what she reportedly wanted for the sake of their own wishes, that is, to keep her alive at all costs. They said as much in their own sworn statements.

They stated that even if she developed diabetic gangrene and had all her limbs amputated, they would still keep her alive; armless, legless, and brain-damaged. They stated that they would keep her alive EVEN IF SHE HAD CLEARLY ARTICULATED THAT SHE DIDN'T WANT TO BE KEPT ALIVE LIKE THIS.

Read that again, folks. That's where the parents are coming from. They are not adequate guardians, caretakers, or decision-makers for their daughter if they would not even honor her clearly-stated wishes.

The prospect that they would override her wishes is chilling, because the self-determination of a competent patient is one of the cornerstones of modern medicine; the old paternalistic model of medicine is gone. (Disclaimer: I am a physician in the state of Florida, though I don't have any affiliation with this case).

I've seen relatives like the Schindlers many times, and had them demand that I ignore patient wishes, including even written living wills/DNRs and instead "do everything." They often mean well, but it's not their place to countermand another person's end-of-life choices. If their demands are contrary to the advance directives, my answer is always the same: "No."

Get your advance directives in order folks, and that means written down. Do that, and you have much better odds that if you become a patient, your wishes will be followed. If you do not, instead of passing away peacefully and painlessly, you could be forced into the same medico-legal limbo as Terri.

Libertarians are the "apple martini drinkers of the right?" Libertarians have "hollow philosophies?"

IS that so?

I happen to lean libertarian in my politics and, despite all the generalizations, I choose to err on the side of life in this case because the last time I checked the libertarian view of limited goverment does not pertain to spousal abuse or murder. You know, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that.

You got a problem with a bloggers opinion, then call 'em out by name and point out why they're wrong.

Until then, excuse me if I take just a wee bit of offense at being called called an apple martini drinker by someone who can't even fuckin' spell libertarian correctly.

Lewis,

maybe I missed something, but it sounds to me like you're arguing that Terri's condition, "officially" diagnosed as PVS, is a sufficient, not just necessary, condition to end her life, i.e. make her stop breathing permanently. Your post takes no consideration of Terri's wishes, which in her specific case, is a point of some controversy.

Your case could have merit if the issue were continued government funding of her treatments, but that is not the case with Terri. The funding comes from funds specifically provided through a lawsuit to provide for her care.

Additionally, this case is a controversy because her PVS diagnosis is in dispute. The key finder of PVS in Terri's case is an active supporter of the Euthanasia Society. If being Catholic can bias someone, you would think having a history of promoting euthanasia would also be considered a bias.

This case has specifics. It is not a general rule or a hypothetical, and Terri is not a dead parrot (which by the way was clinically dead by any definition), she is someone's daughter, and someone whose parents are understandably confused as to why her husband by law seems so determined to take from them the right to care for the severely disabled person that their once-little girl has now become.

In essence, you essentially argue that the government has an interest in denying private parties the right to spend private funds in pursuit of private interests because of your opinion that Terri's life is one not worth living.

Exactly. I don't know if she's PVS or if she's not PVS.

I know she is capable of living by simply being fed by tube- and perhaps by spoon, not that the husband ever troubled himself to find out -- and the awesome power to decide if she should be killed is being left in the hands of a stranger rather than her actual family.

If her actual family decided this, I wouldn't be blogging about it, and I might even side with pro-euthanasia camp over those who want to spare her.

"The courts haven't ordered 'JackSquat'. The husband is making the decisions."

Wrong. The order was MANDATORY: Judge Greer did not authorize or allow Michael or the hospice to pull Terri's feeding tube, but commanded it and, furthermore, commanded that no attempts be made to give her food or water orally, even though that's hardly "medical treatment" and no evidence has ever been presented that she wanted to be denied that, even assuming for the sake of argument that her "no tubes for me" statements were actually made.

"The husband has been scrutinized by at least 20 judges and 8 courts."

Appellate review of narrow questions of law does not factual scrutiny make, nor does the federal district court's invocation of equitable maxims about injunctive relief. Go read Pease's report to Judge Boyers, the state trial judge before Judge Greer, recommending that the court remove Michael Schiavo as Terri's guardian.

Until then, excuse me if I take just a wee bit of offense at being called called an apple martini drinker by someone who can't even fuckin' spell libertarian correctly.

You sound like the type that frinks his Apple Martini shaken- not stirred.

[Kingslasher quote deleted.]

Lewis (lewisinnyc) wrote:
[In reference to Terri] that once there is no electrical activity in their cerebral cortex

Like I posted in the previous thread, stop making shit up. You have nothing of substance to back up this claim. If you do, produce it. If you don't, shut the hell up.

That was me in the last unsigned post.

Did I say frinks? I obviously meant drinks.

Excuse me, sir, for my spelling error.

Nonetheless, libertarianism seems to cloud the big picture in this case and many others.

Chicken shit idealogy.

OCBill - I don't think that I am making all the arguments that you are suggesting.

I am not arguing that PVS is a sufficient argument to end her life, I am suggesting that from some perspectives she is already dead. Her brain stem is functioning, but from what I have have read that appears to be the only part of her brain that is functioning. That is, the only part of her brain that works is the part that keeps the rest of her body working.

As to her wishes, no-one outside the immediate family knows what they were for sure. However, it does raise interesting questions as to the extent to which a person's wishes are enforceable to the extent that they relate to what can happen to their body post-mortem. Personally, I believe that they should be enforceable (absent strong public policy reasons, depending on what those wishes might be, such as necrophilia/cannibalism).

Even if Terri were dead, if it could be established as a question of evidence that she would have wanted her body to remain in its present state, I don't see any reason why the courts or legislature should intervene (especially if she is not going to be a burden on public resources). Certainly, there are public policy desires to ensure that people are interred once they are technically dead; however, my personal opinion is that these are overridden in this case because of the parents' genuinely held belief that she is sentient (even if contrary to the overwhelming preponderance of medical evidence).

I do not agree as to the issue of bias (even though I am against euthenasia for myself in situations in which I am not brain dead) of the physicians. The question of whether or not there are electrical impulses in the cerebral cortex is an objective one. The test results speak for themselves.

I am skeptical of the husband's motives but I am very much against judicial and legislative interference. The parents and the husband should have sorted this out like grown ups. Not every argument needs to be sorted out in the courts.

Just because I think that she is already dead does not mean that I don't consider the slow wasting away of her body by dehydration obscene and unnecessarily hurtful to her parents. I also don't understand why some people were/are so hell-bent on removing the tubes, given the uncertainty as to what her wishes may have been.

Oh, now you are saying that you don't think she should die? (By the way "no electrical activity" in her brain means she couldn't so much as breathe on her own.) Make up your mind!

Oh, and forgive me for being so mean you. I didn't realize that someone who could compare a living, breathing, helpless woman to a stuffed parrot in a comedy sketch could be such a delicate flower.

Andrea brings the smackdown. Go girlfriend!

Ace slices like an f'n hammer again. Sorry about quoting something questionable. Unsafe At Any Speed.

lewisinnyc wrote:
The question of whether or not there are electrical impulses in the cerebral cortex is an objective one. The test results speak for themselves.

What test results? Show us. Stop making shit up.

Ah, come on now... no reason to pound on the libertarians so hard. They have some pretty good ideas even if the party seems to favor open borders. As for the liberals, I was already lonely because of my appreciation of the 2nd Amendment, now because I'm speaking out on behalf of Terri's civil right to live, I'm even lonelier.

Oh well, I don't give a crap what anyone thinks about me anyway... I really don't.

Andrea - I have a thick skin and can handle insults. I was just reminding you that there is a difference between an insult and an argument. But it is rich for you to talk about sensitivity after your overreaction to my 'parrot sketch' post.

I was happy to see you try your hand at an argument. However, I never said that I thought Terri should die, I said that she was already dead. Also, I never pointed out that there was no electrical activity in her brain, only in her cerebral cortex. What do you think it means when electroencephalogram tests flatline, by the way?

Sue - there is plenty out there on the EEG results. I am not going to do your research.

You sound like the type that frinks his Apple Martini shaken- not stirred.

And you, HundredPercenter sound like the type of guy who enjoys a fat cock in the ass. Maybe we can shove a dictionary up there and solve those cravings and your illiteracy at the same time.

lewisinnyc wrote:

Sue - there is plenty out there on the EEG results. I am not going to do your research.

I knew you were a damned liar. You don't have shit. Now shuffle the hell off to Filet-O'-Fish or Dumbocratic Underground, where you came from.

Warden-
If you ever said that to my face, I'd break your jaw for you.

Stop being an internet gangster.

Lib.

HundredPercenter,

Boo-hoo. Your feelings hurt? For someone who dishes so much shit, you sure have a lot of trouble taking any back.

HundredPercenter: wtf? Dude, no need to throw around overly broad generalizations as fact, much less accompany 'em with violent threats.

I find the behavior of *many* bloglibertarians on this appalling, but you could pick out a pretty decent selection of those who are the opposite.

Remember that thing about civility...?

And no insult is really an invitation for a threat of violence.

Ratchet it down, boys.

[Comment deleted. One more suggestion about killing people you disagree with and you'll lose commentig privileges.]

It was a joke Ace. Kind of like spitting on your hands, hoisting a black flag and beginning slitting throats is a joke. It wasn't meant to be a suggestion at all. People feel very strongly about this case and I was facetiously saying that I wouldn't be surprised if someone harmed Michael to save Terri.

Testing 1, 2, I disagree with Osama bin Laden and hereby directly suggest that someone kill him. Can I still comment?

Kingslasher,

Isn't this second time you and I have gone round on this issue?

1) The quote from Mencken is metaphorical.

2) You are suggesting, and gleefully, that someone should car-bomb Schiavo. That's a joke? Sounds like the sort of "joke" you mean.

3) You can advocate the killing of all foreign nationals engaging in war against us, or who insist in that war against us. I draw the line -- get this -- over killing fellow citizens, which (not to throw legal jargon at you) is generally regarded as "Murder."

Clear?

Lewisinnyc is correct, Dohnim. Her EEG Flat-lines for cerebral cortex activity, has since her heart attack. They had some new CAT scans up on TV last night on Fox. Only 20% of her original brain mass is still there, and both doctors said even that tissue appears damaged and abnormal in appearance.

I hope the husband relents and allows an autopsy to debunk the Right to Lifers sliming - as pertains to broken bones from his "abuse", as well as their claims that "new tests and new therapies" could help Schiavo recover. They should make some pics, sketches, even a model of her brain to help explain to religious people just how messed up T Schiavo was during her 15 years of Vegetative existence.

Frankly, I think part of the dislike of Michael Schiavo comes from the anti-abortion movement and female man-haters that just lost Scott Peterson as their favorite villain and needed a replacement to focus their inchoate, ever-present anger on.

Our most persistent paleotroll wrote:

needed a replacement to focus their inchoate, ever-present anger on

No offense, dude, but I'm tired of arguing about this with you.

If you can't observe a relatively simple rule against advocating, or seeming to advocate, the assassination of fellow American citizens, you are hereby invited to fuck off and find some other forum to post your murder-fantasies in.

Get this: This is my forum. Not only do I have some ownership rights regarding it, but any comments made here are imputable to myself, as I have the power (and responsibility) to delete over the line comments.

And I don't want to be associated with that kind of murder-porn. I don't need people slamming me and this site for allowing people to suggest the murder of American citizens.

TheNewGuy -

Great post and I'm sure if you have the time and inclination you can crank out some other good posts.

I mentioned in my past post the EEGs, the CAT scans showing no real brain is left......and thought people are forgetting the Schindlers have had access to all this, all the tests, long sit-downs with doctors about it....................and have gone out and told the public a totally different story from the facts they have been presented with.

This is not a case of parents just arriving knowing nothing of the patient's status other than eyeballing her.......they know as much about her condition as Michael Schiavo and the doctors.

What they do appear to want, I agree with you, is to keep her alive at ALL COSTS - her wishes don't matter to them, nor her condition - so they are going out and lying to the public about her regular chats, prospects to "cure her", the misleading video.

The press, justly sorry for them, has unfortunately not given them the skepticism they are giving M Schiavo....but the lies of the Schindlers...and they are lies...not "self-delusion"....are looking pretty obvious. The media does owe it to us to be truthful, and the Blogworld should be doing a little more fact-checking and a little less casting M SChiavo as a Scott Perterson II....

Sorry, Cedarford*, but I haven't seen these EEGs you and the other mushbrains are bleating about. Produce them, please.

Oh wait, I know, you're going to pull out testimony about the EEGs from a quack who hasn't seen a patient in the past 25 years whom he deems worthy of saving. That's great. Tell you what, when you get brave enough to hire that neurologist to "treat" you, I'll possibly consider his diagnoses slightly more valuable than the toilet paper I wipe my piss on.

*a.k.a. Pat Buchanan's rentboy

I should reiterate that it's very important that not only do we starve this woman to death, but we also chop her open and saw her up to get back at her parents. I cannot understand their hostility to this man who is merely trying to do the right thing and help Terri get on with her life, but since I suspect their motives it is important to punish them. That will teach the RTL fanatics and the man-hating hairy legged lesbians with their ineffable hatred of humanity. Natural allies, those Jesus-fondlers and their little butch golf-playing sidekicks. And the Chinamen. What Randall Terry doesn't want you to know is that he's actually a Zionist carpet-munching Chinese bulldyke. Here's the link:

New Kid, welcome to the forum. You're a man after my own heart and I detect cetain stylistic similarities. You will find my approval will really drive your stock up around here, and it can also open some doors at The American Conservative and maybe, if you send me some photos, I can hook you up at the National Vanguard too.

Congrats New Guy,

You have a blog-buddy. A kindred spirit.

Sorry, Ace.

These things happen when I don't take my meds.

commencing ratcheting sequence......

National Vanguard. Hmmm.

Pseudarford, I'm going to invoke Godwin's law and exclude you from this disussion now.

A note on EEGs. It all depends on lead placement. There is no need to attempt to detect activity in her brainstem... it's clinically obvious from her regular heart rate and normal respirations that her brainstem is functioning. The question you want to answer is whether she has any cortical EEG activity, in the frontal, parietal, or occipital cortices, for instance.

I've not looked at Terri's actual tracings, but based on the massive damage shown on the CT, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see isoelectric cortical leads. Massive brain damage leading to loss of cortical brain activity will produce EEG silence.

Sue Dohnim -

You have willfull blindness. That or your mind is "as the toilet paper I wipe my piss with".

The EEGs come up again and again in the court documents and the guardian ad litems 2003 report.

So you're essentially admitting you haven't read any of the primary documents in the Schiavo case.

You appear to just be emoting - and being fed - though not through a tube in your case - assertions of the Religious Right.

Cheers

[TNG--ahem, sorry, that jest wasn't directed at you, but at Cedarford. You're fine- you just had the misfortune of his endorsement. Now, back to our regularly scheduled Pseudarford:]

Lead placement? That's a good efficient idea--shoot her right in her vegetable, liquid, V-8 head. Saves time starving her. We need to work on our efficiency because we import all our doctors from India and our crap from China and our labor from Mexico to pick our vegetables, like Terri Schaivo.

I like your style, TNG! You bring a fresh, clear-eyed objectivity to the debate that reminds me of myself, long ago, when the John Birch society was just getting started.

"You have willfull blindness.

-Cedarford"

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

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

Not bad, for someone WITHOUT A FUCKING BRAIN, EH?

So Cedarford*, where are these EEGs? Scan them in, put them on some webspace, snap to it.

Oh wait, you don't have them, you're just taking the word of someone who's taking the word of someone else who's a quack that hasn't successfully treated a patient in 20 years.

You're taking it on faith that this quack is a good doctor. Google him up and see how great he is. You know his name, right? If you've done as much research as I have about the case, you would .

You're taking it on faith that Terri had proper EEGs done. You don't have any proof, it's an article of faith. Shut your skepticism off when the mainstream media talks, yes, don't think, just believe it.

You've got more faith than any Evangelical Christian I've ever met. Except they don't kill other people in the name of their faith.

* a.k.a., Buchanan's testicle moistener

"* a.k.a., Buchanan's testicle moistener"

Well, I believe my job is done. The young guns are in town. Go get him!

Yeah Cedarford! - Google up Drs. Vincent Gambone, James Barnhill, Melvin Greer, Peter Bambakidis, Ronald Cranford, James Carnahan and Eugene Alcazaren.

Lying liars, every damned one. Even their CT and EEG scans lied. And the judges were in cahoots, because they pretended to have seen those tests that didn't exist.

Oh, and Dohnim here's a useful link: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

How about you learn the facts before you shoot off your festering mouth.

"How about you learn the facts before you shoot off your festering mouth."

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

Is this factual enough for you, asshole?

lewisinnyc wrote:

Oh, and Dohnim here's a useful link: http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

How about you learn the facts before you shoot off your festering mouth.

Went there long before you provided the link. There's no reference to an EEG except from Dr. Ronald Cranford, who was the quack I mentioned. I wouldn't trust him to fucking diagnose a dog with having fleas.

Cranford is a great guy. Twenty years and not a patient worth saving. Did you ever hear of Robert Wendland? He could drive his motorized wheelchair better than Stephen Hawking could drive his, but Cranford still diagnosed him as PVS and wanted him dead.

I've got some marvelous articles Cranford wrote sitting on my hard drive. Want to read them? They're all about how people should be slabbed if they're too much trouble to care for. Wonderful fellow, that Cranford. Call him up next time you have a brain injury... oh wait... want me to call him for you?

Sue* -

EEGs were done repeatedly on her long before Cranford, beginning with her initial 1990 diagnosis as a vegetative.

All show her flat-lining in cortical activity.

Best thing now is for you and your friends to insist on an autopsy to help remove any doubts you have and help you achieve.....closure.

* - Another Ignorant Bible-Thumping Twat

What I'd like to know is how Cedartwat can type all that stuff with only a brain stem in his cranium. It has to be true -- I saw his EEG on the web! Here:

http://www.lookatthemonkeygobang.stup/id/moron.html

You know who piss me off? Liberatarian-leaning bloggers and writers (no names) who sort of praise themselves for their own indifference to this case, and make sport out of anyone who has an opinion about it.

Interesting. I was thinking about my own growing antipathy towards libertarians not more than an hour ago. And I'm no Christer. Maybe the conservative crackup isn't such bullshit after all.

On the other hand, the self-congratulatory libs don't bug me nearly as much as the "remorseful Bush voter" bloggers. It's this phenomenon come back to life in post-election form, with an added element of having gotten to have your cake and eat it, too. Frankly, I'm amazed Sullivan didn't think of it: "I'll vote for Bush, then bitch for four years about how everything Bush does is wrong. That's just how reasonable I am." Although in fairness to them, aside from an historic election in Iraq and a mass popular uprising in Lebanon, it has been a pretty slow first six months.

Dogstar - thanks for the video, although I have seen it before. You know, if you roll a dice often enough, you are bound to get a six. If I only show videos of me rolling a six, you'd think that I roll a six every time.

How many hours of video were shot of Terri not responding to stimuli?

Cedarford*, time to cry. Your lovemaster says Terri should live.

By the way, I'm as much of a Bible thumper as RALPH FUCKING NADER. Find where I quote any scripture around here or anywhere else, dumbass.

lewisinnyc, you've just admitted that Terri's not in a persistent vegetative state according to Florida law. Any reaction to external stimuli, no matter how many hours it takes, disqualifies Terri from the legal PVS diagnosis.

*Buchanan's spurned mistress

Crackup? I dunno. Diversification, I think. When Iran hits the fan, though... Everyone back to your places.

However, before this I personally thought that religious conservative talk of the "culture of death" was mostly cheap generalization. I was wrong.

I was having so much fun with extraneous ad hominem that I forgot to address your salient points, Cedarford (henceforth known as "Seedy").

Seedy wrote:
EEGs were done repeatedly on her long before Cranford, beginning with her initial 1990 diagnosis as a vegetative.

All show her flat-lining in cortical activity.

I've googled, looked through the documents on abstractappeal and terrisfight and have not found the EEGs, nor found anyone preceding Cranford mentioning them.

Show me the money, Seedy.

Unless you're keeping the faith. Then you don't need evidence, you just need to believe. Just believe whatever they tell you Seedy.

They have the fancy black robes, the white lab coats, and the suits, cameras, and earpieces. Vestments of the modern day priesthood. They chant their prayers (i.e. talking points) and you repeat them like the good parishioner you are.

Best thing now is for you and your friends to insist on an autopsy to help remove any doubts you have and help you achieve.....closure.

Michael's having her cremated as soon as she kicks the bucket because, according to him, "she doesn't like worms." Terri sure did like to talk about her death around Mike when she was 24 years old.

Isn't that convenient?

"How many hours of video were shot of Terri not responding to stimuli?"

Who cares? It takes three or four days of asking to get my teenagers to clean their rooms.

We have irrefutable proof that she can hear, understand and respond to a question. And yet, that's still not good enough for you.

I think that says just as much about you as it does her.

Sue*

The EEGs were 1st taken in 1990 - her neurologists back then, who were not involved in the current court proceedings, termed her a "flat-liner" and classified her as PVS back in 1990. 2 more saw her in the mid-90s, confirming the EEG flatlines and the PVS diagnosis. CAT scans taken in 1996, 2002 show massive brain damage. 4 of the 5 MDs examining her in 2002 as part of the court proceedings were neurologists. 3 confirmed irretrievable PVS, one though there was a minute possibility she could be "minimally conscious".

The results are that 7 of 8 neurologists give a profoundly vegetative diagnosis. The neurological expert retained by the Schindlers differs, but the judge found him and the "nobel-nominated" baremetric MD non-credible.

At this stage, the Right to Lifers should be demanding an autopsy (even better than MRI & PET to evaluate brain damage!). There are also "abuse" allegations.

But I doubt the Schindlers will demand one. Over the years they have seen all the same objective medical tests and opinions as M Schiavo has - nothing has been with held from them. They know the "abuse" allegations are spurious because M Schiavo and T Schiavo were living with them when T Schiavo was "mistreated". They know, in moments when their religious fervor wanes, that T Schiavo's brain damage has made her an unresponsive husk....

The Schindlers have an opportunity to back up their claims that with the right therapy T Schiavo could have learned to swallow, talk, and even walk. To have law enforcement pursue an autopsy through making an "abuse" complaint.

But watch, they won't, because they know the truth isn't what they have been communicating in public...

*When someone talks and quacks like a RTL duck, for all intents and purposes, that person is a RTL duck.

The point is that she can't control her actions. Her actions are largely random. If you tell her to open her eyes 100 times she might open them once (which she would have done even if you had said nothing).

If you have that one time on film it looks like she was following commands, but it is just a mere co-incidence. I am not convinced that Terri's open eyes have anything to do with the fact that she was told to open them.

There is no evidence that she consciously responds to stimuli.

I might point out, however, that people can respond unconsciously to some stimuli by virtue of biological pre-programming of the brain stem (as opposed to the cerebral cortex). It is this reaction, for example that makes people automatically pull their hand from a hot surface before they have had the chance to think about the fact their hand is burning.

So, even if it could be established that Terri did respond to her father (and the crux of the court cases was that she did not), one would still need to establish that it wasn't a 'knee-jerk' response by her brain stem to Mr. Schindler's loud voice in her ear.

I hear ya, Allah. Shoot, I've spent the last two years thinking about my growing antipathy to libertarians-- and I AM one, sort of.

Seedy wrote:

The EEGs were 1st taken in 1990 - her neurologists back then, who were not involved in the current court proceedings, termed her a "flat-liner" and classified her as PVS back in 1990. 2 more saw her in the mid-90s, confirming the EEG flatlines and the PVS diagnosis.

Who? Where? You have still offered no proof of this. I've searched practically the entire damned internet for this and come up with nothing.

Here, let me make a claim.

Cedarford, in November of 1992, checked into Bellevue with a near fatal case of strep throat. A board-certified otolaryngologist, one Dr. Openup N. Sayyah, confirmed that Cedarford's condition was caused by his performing analingus on Patrick Buchanan. Though he and many of his anti-Semitic homophobic paleo friends denied it, Superior Court Judge Ty Rant found him guilty of sodomy and all appeals courts have upheld the judge's decision.

As proof of my claim, I offer the same proof that Seedy does - absolutely nothing.

CAT scans taken in 1996, 2002 show massive brain damage. 4 of the 5 MDs examining her in 2002 as part of the court proceedings were neurologists. 3 confirmed irretrievable PVS, one though there was a minute possibility she could be "minimally conscious".

I've seen a CAT scan that is purported to be her 1996 one, but none from 2002. Here's an interesting analysis of that CAT scan.

The five doctors you mention are well documented. How many of them have actually treated and cured patients in the past 20 years?

The results are that 7 of 8 neurologists give a profoundly vegetative diagnosis. The neurological expert retained by the Schindlers differs, but the judge found him and the "nobel-nominated" baremetric MD non-credible.

7 of 8? First you wrote about 5 doctors, now you mention, out of nowhere, the numbers 7 and 8. You seem to have lost coherence here. You skipped a verse of the chant, Seedy. Go back and look at the hymnal again.

Here's a good test to see who's a quack and who's not. If (or maybe I should say, back when) you had a significant brain injury, which of these doctors would you want at your bedside?

A doctor who is over 80 years old and hasn't treated a patient in probably 10 years?

A doctor whose brother knows George Felos through membership in an organization (scan for "Bambakidis" on that page) that Felos ran?

Or a doctor who wants to ice everyone whom he doesn't deem worthy of care, including brain-damaged people capable of driving motorized wheelchairs (scan in Acrobat for "Wendland").

But of course none of this will convince you. Your faith is much stronger than your heart, eyes, or reason.

Maybe your faith will save you if you ever do a Gary Busey and these doctors come to your rescue.

lewisinnyc:

Find a reputable doctor (one with a practice and patients) who will testify that opening one's eyes very wide and slow is in any way a reflex action, and I will concede Michael Schiavo's and Felos' point that you and the other sheep constantly bleat.

Most reflex actions close the eyes, because reflex evolved from the need to protect one's body (your example of snatching one's hand from heat, for instance.)

The startle reflex is the only one I know of that opens the eyes. Terri opened them too slowly for it to be a startle reflex.

Start thinking for yourself instead of chanting along with the faithful.

Pseudo Numb - You bore me. Perhaps you should learn about the Glascow Coma Scale...

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/masstrauma/gscale.asp

"But of course none of this will convince you."

Sadly true. As somebody else pointed out we're talking 'Schindlers' here and our troll will never give quarter to a Schindler.

Sue, you are my hero. Keep fighting the good fight.

Sue* The Right to Lifer who denies she is such, "blesses us" with her math cognition powers.

7 of 8? First you wrote about 5 doctors, now you mention, out of nowhere, the numbers 7 and 8.

Lets see if the "Show me the proof" twat can do a math calculation from reading:

in 1990 - her neurologists back then, who were not involved in the current court proceedings, termed her a "flat-liner".

+
2 more saw her in the mid-90s,

+
4 of the 5 MDs examining her in 2002 as part of the court proceedings were neurologists.

=

The results are that 7 of 8 neurologists give a profoundly vegetative diagnosis.

No doubt our dear Religious Right fan (I'm not! I;m not! She says....) may have has much difficulty processing this info as she has processing other facts in the case that conflict with her moral beliefs...

There is reason why the RTL argument has failed so badly with over 80% of the public.

The reason? Folks like Sue, who appear gripped in Religious delusion (though she swears she isn't that religious) and determined to deny any fact she is presented with.

Cedarturd, you better give up. Sue is beating you like a rented mule and its starting to get embarrassing. Quit while you have a shred of dignity left. Oh wait, too late...

SpewFan - Love your cheerleading! It shows you are good for something.

"The point is that she can't control her actions. Her actions are largely random. If you tell her to open her eyes 100 times she might open them once (which she would have done even if you had said nothing). "

Jesus, you'll do or say anything. Is starving this woman to death really THAT important to you?

How the hell do you know how many times she was asked to perform that particular task?

I could unsuccessfully ask my dogs to do that 10,000 times in a row, but torturing them to death because they responded a little too slow or infrequently just seems... like an unproductive use of my time and energy.

Interesting...

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/masstrauma/gscale.asp

Based on the Glasgow Coma Scale, Terri is NOT in a coma.

There is documented, videotaped evidence of her:

(a) eye opening response, to verbal stimuli, command, speech (3 points);

(b) motor response, withdraws in response to pain (4 points); and

(c) verbal response, incomprehensible speech (2 points).

That's a total of 9 points, one more than the coma definition.

Dammit, that was me again.

Dogbreath - The court cases themselves indicated that there were many hours of video that were shot showing a totally unresponsive Terri.

And starving this woman is not important to me at all - note my comment at 11:51am yesterday:

"Certainly, there are public policy desires to ensure that people are interred once they are technically dead; however, my personal opinion is that these are overridden in this case because of the parents' genuinely held belief that she is sentient (even if contrary to the overwhelming preponderance of medical evidence)."

Just because I don't agree that the tubes should be removed doesn't mean that I believe all the crap about Terri's mental powers. I think we have a tragic story here of a woman who has permanently lost consciousness and who has been used as a pawn by everyone, including her husband, her parents, the courts, the legislature, liberals, libertarians and, yes, the religious right. I don't have an agenda to push, other than to see truth win over hysteria.

Doggie - I agree. She is not in a coma.

"I think we have a tragic story here of a woman who has permanently lost consciousness..."

I think you're ignoring a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

And, once again, you have NO CLUE how many times she was asked to open her eyes without responding.

If you were napping, and I asked you unsuccessfully to do it a couple dozen times, would you be ok with being starved to death, just because fifteen years ago you MIGHT have said ONCE something like, "I don't want to live like that"?

This case is built on the slimmest possible evidence. I'm wondering what the standard of proof was- "beyond a reasonable doubt", or just "a preponderance of evidence"?

It would be pretty sad if all it takes is 50.1% of the evidence falling one way to do this.

Dogbreath - As I have said, I don't feel particularly strong at all about removing the tubes. I'll even go one step further and say that I find the obsession with removing the tubes somewhat morbid.

I'll even agree with you that in a termination of life situation, we do need a higher standard that balance of evidence (which was the test used) in determining intention. However, "beyond reasonable doubt" is probably too high a standard.

I don't know how many times Terri was asked to open her eyes - it could have been once; it could have been 10000 times. However, an isolated example of her being told to open her eyes followed by her opening her eyes is not proof that she consciously responds to stimuli any more than a tape of me calling out the correct number before a roulette wheel stops is proof that I can predict the future.

Hey Seedy, I'm a Jew.

Also, RALPH FUCKING NADER is a hardcore RTLer according to your criteria. And so is Pat "The Man-Cannon" Buchanan.

Still no proof I see.

I'm standing by my claim that you got strep throat from licking Buchanan's asscrack. Testimony from four board-certified analingus experts supports this assertion, and there are two charts from 1996 and 1999 that show you have practically no gag reflex when tonguing bungholes.

Cedarturd,

Not only am I cheerleading, I'm keeping score and I have it Sue 55, Cedarturd 0. What this means of course is you're not only a loser, you're an official loser! Congratulations!

Sue* Hey Seedy, I'm a Jew.

So???

There are Jews in the RTL movement. Many are mainly working as "handlers" of the Christian Zionists, but many are strongly pro-life, anti-abortion, and with the RTL out of strong religious conviction.

Hopefully M Schiavo will consider having an autopsy done to help clear the air on the extent of T Schiavo's brain necrosis and ensuent vegetative state.

When ACE 1st started writing about this, he noted that many people not coming from a religious perspective were disagreeing with T Schiavo being allowed to die - concern that food and water withdrawal was "torturing" someone to death, those needing a new heel after their Laci Peterson soap opera finally ended, concern that like the MIA wives, moving on was an act of unfaithfulness on M Schiavo's part (many stories exist of a vicious dispute between MIA parties determined to stay faithful through celibacy until the MIA was found, and those that started new relationships).

But what I see from the Schindlers, their RTL legal and spiritual support team, Congress, the Bush Brothers, and the Faith Revival Carnival playing outside the Hospice drips religion.

But to be fair to the religious, majorities of Catholics and even Evangelicals opposed the Republican Congress and Presidents pandering to the Right to Lifers...and though a few Democrats joined in, this is clearly looking to be a Republican Party and PR disaster of pushing Big Gov't into end of life decisions.

The bulk of Religious people know full well that this could happen to them. Or a child of theirs (10,000 of the 35,000 non-Alzheimer vegetatives are children). And want their wishes, not Randall Terry's, to count, and avoid a ruinous, prolonged personal & legal mess like the Terri Schiavo Affair.

They also know that medical advances could keep building the number of Vegetatives into several million soon, and keep dying but oblivious patients alive for years with no awareness or quality of life. And that money is an issue. Do religious people wish to starve all charity and compassion given others to preserve funds to keep the vegetative alive at all costs?? It doesn't appear so.

Okay, you win. I can't parody that.

* - Sue. An ignorant twat that never lets the truth get in the way of her beliefs.

Curiously, while I would defer on tonguing Pat B, I do note the only 2 dates I knew that relished performing analingus on guys were Jewish gals in law school. I guess there was nothing about it being non-Kosher, and it was a wonder to finally have a Jewish gal put her mouth to good use. Though one did whine in a JAP-y way about "rewards" due for her rectal tonguing.

[Ah, well done. That is truly an amazing parody of Cedarford. It's crude, it's pedantic, it's ad hominem, and it's anti-semitic! If you could have bashed the Chinese, it would have been perfect. Now, do be careful in the future: I think you may get in some trouble by using Cedar's real handle and address instead of making one up.]

Let's tally up the score for Seedy -

Posting proof of claims = 0

Anti-Semitism = 10

Classifying RALPH FUCKING NADER as a Right-To-Lifer = 10

Classifying LANNY FUCKING DAVIS as a Right-To-Lifer = 10

Classifying liberals as Right-To-Lifers = 10

Giving a spit-shine to Buchanan's sphincter = 10

Getting pissed off and ranting enough to astonish Pseudoford and make me laugh like a hyena at your pathetic ass = priceless

You win!

May I assume this is the flame war that Ace mentioned the other day?

No. Cedarford is this site's comic relief. You don't think anyone here takes him seriously, do you?

He's very disorganized; people are always telling him, "You thought? You thought? You thought eight fucking things today!"

Has Cedartroll really gotten to the point where he can say anything and he won't get banned, because, you know, he's a walking joke?

Just asking, cause that last one was... Wtf? You know, he claimed he had a kid serving abroad -- does his wife know he's writing this shit? Cause it's seriously disturbed.

Cedarford - I am also Jewish, and you are losing friends at a rapid rate.

"Curiously, while I would defer on tonguing Pat B, I do note the only 2 dates I knew that relished performing analingus on guys were Jewish gals in law school. I guess there was nothing about it being non-Kosher, and it was a wonder to finally have a Jewish gal put her mouth to good use. Though one did whine in a JAP-y way about "rewards" due for her rectal tonguing."

ummmmm count me in as highly offended. I am noticing a trend here though ....

As the players in the theater of the absurd watch their "arguments" fall apart, their discussions tend to devolve into namecalling and filthy offensive tripe. Obviously highly educated, intelligent folks ...

Hey! Anyone notice that absurd almost rhymes with "Cedar-furd"?

You know what? One thing that deeply troubles me about this whole case is this whole "PVS" diagnosis. We see Terri Shiavo smiling and responding to stimulus and are told "oh, that's completely consistent with PVS", and we hear this from experts. So some people become convinced that they've learned something new, that they can't believe their own lying eyes but have to take experts' word for it that an individual who exhibits these responses is in a "vegetative state". But most people hear that and think "vegetable". In other words, brain dead. So many people are convinced that it's OK that Terri's starving to death because she can't suffer anyway, being in a PVS. But they're being snookered because when the experts say that she's in a PVS, they're not really saying what most people think they're saying. I mean really, the things we've all seen on the videotapes being consistent with a PVS? Maybe it's consistent with whatever they're defining as PVS, but there's just no way that it's consistent with being brain dead.