Sobering Thoughts |
|
|
Comments on politics, the culture, economics, and sports by Paul Tuns.
I am editor-in-chief of "The Interim," Canada's life and family newspaper, and author of "Jean Chretien: A Legacy of Scandal" (2004) and "The Dauphin: The Truth about Justin Trudeau" (2015).
I am some combination of conservative/libertarian, standing athwart history yelling "bullshit!"
You can follow me on Twitter (@ptuns).
Archives
|
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Now is the time to mourn I have little to say right now. I feel the same way that Justin Torres does: "I’m not sure why—it was clear days ago that Terri Schiavo would die—but I am beside myself, and almost at a loss for words, upon hearing the news. There will be time to examine this horrible episode in our culture for the principal lessons and morals." When I heard the news this morning it felt like I was punched in the gut. For now, Fr. Rob Johansen hits the right note: "There will be more to say about Terri later; her life, her struggle, her death. But now is the time to mourn. Mourn for her. Mourn for her family. And mourn for our nation, which has failed to protect one of our weakest and most vulnerable." Required reading at Daifallah's Three items of great import. 1) Ahmad Chalabi's "latest" vindication. Adam Daifallah is the go-to blogger on this, make sure you read how the press has been out to get him. 2) Canada's silence about the treatment of Zahra Kazemi. This another story Daifallah has been on top of from the beginning. (Read his New York Sun column about the case here.) Perhaps today's disturbing but hardly surprising Globe and Mail story on the beating and rape of this Canadian journalist will get Canada's Foreign Minister to pay attention. (The CBC story is available here.) 3) The world's worst regimes. Freedom House released its list of the worst regimes and six of them are members of the UN Human Rights Commission (China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe). Great work, Adam. Terri Schindler-Schiavo, RIP At the age of 41 and after 14 days without nourishment or hydration, Terri Schindler-Schiavo has passed away. Michael Schiavo, it is reported, barred her parents from being bedside at the time of her death. More later. Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Comments Send 'em to paul_tuns [at] yahoo.com. In response to my updates on Terri Schindler-Schiavo, dozens of you have sent sometimes heart-wrenching but always heart-warming stories of caring for disabled or terminally ill children and parents. Indeed, nothing I have blogged about before has generated as many emails as these updates. Initially I was a little surprised that so many responses came from parents and adult children who feel a kinship with Terri and her parents after sacrificing, sometimes for many years, to care for their own loved ones. Thank you for sharing your experiences with me. May God bless you and your families. Terri update (Wednesday edition) It was reported earlier today that there was a false report of Terri's death by CBS. Way to go, guys. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeal has turned down the Schindler's request for a new trial and, in the meantime, to have Terri's feeding tube re-inserted. The Washington Post reported: "Circuit Judge Stanley F. Birch Jr., who wrote one of the court’s two concurring opinions supporting its decision, said that the court lacks jurisdiction in the Schiavo case because a new law transferring the case from state to federal courts is unconstitutional." It seems that blacks are split over whether Terri should live or die. AP reported, "Of the 23 members of the Congressional Black Caucus who voted — 17 did not attend — 10 supported the Republican-sponsored bill." The rest, including Rep. John Lewis, took the opportunity to stand up for states' rights. For all the hoopla about Michael Schiavo allowing an autopsy on Terri, the USA Today reported that doctors are skeptical about whether it will show whether she was in a persistent vegatitive state. The Boston Globe reported on Jesse Jackson's attraction to the cameras, er, I mean coming to the defence of Terri: "Jackson is the first prominent liberal to join the Schindler family's long-running effort to prolong their severely brain-damaged daughter's life..." Says something doesn't it that he is the first prominent liberal to speak up on behalf of Terri. As Jay Nordlinger said in his Impromptus column today: "Another thing I have been reminded of, during this last week or so: A great shift has occurred in American politics. The story used to be that the Left, broadly defined, was the party of love, compassion, softness — the large-hearted party. We used to say, 'Bleeding hearts!' And the Right was cold, materialistic, callous — Hobbesian. What happened?" What happened, indeed. Eric Pfieffer examines how Michael Schiavo's lawyer George Felos' mind works after reading Felos' literary masterpiece Litigation as Spiritual Practice. Pfieffer says of the lawyer: "His apparent lack of concern for Terri Schiavo's plight might be better understood in the context of his belief that '[i]n reality you have never been born and never can die'." Adam Daifallah's view on Terri is succinct: "She should live! I don't see how anyone can argue otherwise." Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Terri update (Tuesday evening edition) Michael Schiavo will allow an autopsy of Terri to demonstrate the extent of her injuries. Fine. Who gets to chose who'll do it? National Review Online and The Weekly Standard (see Saturday for the WS) both have a number of pieces to peek at. At the Standard, Jeffrey Bell and Frank Cannon say that the politics of this case will not hurt Republicans in the long run. At NRO, Wesley Smith looks at the idea of personhood and whether Terri qualifies. Sorry for the quick post. Terri update (Tuesday morning edition) Bob Schindler says his daughter is doing well considering: "She's still communicating, she's still responding. She's emaciated, but she's responsive." But that conflicts with what Bob Schindler Jr. is quoted saying in The Guardian after telling his parents not to visit his sister anymore: "My mother has to experience her daughter dying in this fashion. It's not painless and it's not peaceful." Several interesting bits have emerged in stories over the past day, all of them appearing in this AP story. Terri's father said of the morphine his daughter has been given, "I have a great concern that they will expedite the process to kill her with an overdose of morphine because that's the procedure that happens." Michael Schiavo's lawyer George Felos denies that Terri is being killed by a morphine overdose but one wonders why the need for morphine if she doesn't feel anything? AP reports, "The records show that the second dose was given after nurses noticed 'light moaning and facial grimacing and tensing of arms,' he said." So the PSV patient moaned lightly and grimaced and tensed her arms. The New York Daily News reports that Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers are gearing up for a fight over whether Terri is cremated. Michael may have evidence to burn; the Schindlers want their daughter to be buried where they can visit. (And, of course, Catholics should not be cremated.) The protests to keep Terri alive that are taking place outside the hospice where she is being starved to death are temporarily forcing students out of the neighbourhood school. Lastly, Robert P. George poses an important question: "As the end nears for Terri Schiavo, one question remains: What will officials record on her death certificate as the cause of death? The truth is that the cause of her death will be malnutrition and/or dehydration. But will officials tell the truth?" Monday, March 28, 2005
Terri update (Monday morning edition) Just a few things. Jay Nordlinger makes two points in his Impromptus column worth repeating. First: "Some of you — some readers — have asked me to comment on the Schiavo case. But I'm afraid I can't — not properly — because I'm so appalled by it. I am still adjusting to the fact that I'm living in a country that will gladly starve a helpless woman to death." Second: "I was on a television show yesterday with Rep. Loretta Sanchez — the lady who beat Bob Dornan in California — and she sneered, 'I thought conservatives believed in the sanctity of marriage.' Who knew that the sanctity of marriage included the right, or the duty, to starve your wife to death?" Chronicles's Thomas Fleming has a number of points worth noting. First, he looks at how "Hard cases make bad law. They also cause people to lose their moral bearings and their political principles. The case of Theresa Schiavo is no exception." But among the more important tidbits, more important that is, than the politics of the case is this: "Michael Schiavo has effectively demonstrated that he does not regard Theresa as his wife: In filing obituary notices for each of his parents (in 1997 and again in 2001), he described them as survived by himself and his fiancée Jodi Centzone. This loving, caring husband, as he likes to portray himself, has effectively repudiated his first wife, and, if Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature wished to do anything productive, they would stiffen laws protecting marriage and strip people like Mr. Schiavo of their power to act on behalf of their wives. It is not judges who need more power, but families." To fix this problem, Fleming proposes (perhaps tongue-in-cheek) that the Florida legislature pass a law "stripping adulterers of spousal rights." That might help in future cases. One serious problem I have with Fleming is his contention that Christians should just let Terri get on with her dying process. Clayton Cramer has a response to those who believe such drivel: "I've seen defenders of starving Terri Schiavo claim that it shouldn't cause Christians any grief if Terri dies, because she's going to Heaven anyway. I guess we shouldn't let genocide, murder, or capital punishment cause us any grief, either, then." Cramer also has some thoughts about the loving, dedicated husband Michael when he was (initially) refusing Terri's right to receive Holy Communion: "Is this a silly matter? I don't believe that last rites have any significance to whether you go to Heaven or not. It matters a lot to Catholics--so Michael Schiavo refusing this request can be interpreted as either: 1. Trying to deny Terri full absolution for her sins. 2. Trying to cause more suffering to Terri's parents. Either way, Michael Schiavo just keeps adding to the reasons why I am inclined to see him as a nasty and vicious guy, not a well-intentioned person who just disagrees with the Schindlers about what is best for Terri." John Fund notes liberal hypocrisy by juxtaposing Terri's case with that of Elian Gonzalez. It is not terribly surprising that sermons this Easter weekend noted the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case. It is surprising that a New York Times reporter would find herself in a church to report on it. And lastly, protestors who want to see Terri live are headed to Washington. Wolfowitz retreats The Jakarta Post has an enligtening interview with President Bush's pick for World Bank president, Paul Wolfowitz. By now, everyone knows that Wolfowitz was the Jew, er, neoconservative, beating the war drums to rid Iraq of Saddam Hussein. Wolfowitz has long preached from the Bible of democracy, finding that it would cure the world of many of its security and economic ills. Unfortunately, in this interview (Reuters reports on the interview here), Wolfowitz backs away from his commitment to democratizing the developing world. Consider this exchange: JP: "Will you use your new position to promote democracy around the world?" PW: "I think people know what I think on that subject, but I think I'll be more effective if I concentrate on those things that lead to poverty reduction and economic development. At the same time, you can't make a simple distinction when you get to the area of corruption, you are talking about problems that affect democracy and economic development. So the institutional basis of economic development is important, but I think the things that the World Bank president can advocate for most effectively are getting the donor countries to be more generous, getting the developed countries to open their markets, getting the developing countries to strengthen their own institutions against corruption, so aid is used effectively. Those are the kinds of things that if I can focus on as president of the World Bank and really make a difference." Yes, I know that Wolfowitz must play nice right now, but he cannot just brush aside the possibility of pushing developing non-democratic nations toward democracy in his new role at the World Bank. Wolfowitz missed an excellent opportunity to address this when the Post asked, "How do you make sure that aid is not corrupted?" One would believe, and Wolfowitz certainly did at one time, that the accountability that comes with elected governments in the developing world, would protect against excessive corrupt use of development aid. Indeed, Wolfowitz acknowledges this in passing in the passage quoted above, but he is clearly trying to diminish the concern about his pushing for democracy by publicly diminishing his own enthusiasm for democracy. This is too bad, for as Sebastian Mallaby writes in the Washington Post, Wolfowitz's pro-democracy ideology is exactly what the World Bank needs right now: "Despite the unpopularity of the Iraq war, Wolfowitz's strength is that he'll make the bank a tool of U.S. policy. And if you're going to have an ideology, Wolfowitz has the right one." (Unfortunately, in the Jakarta Post interview, Woflowitz says that he will not represent the Bush administration because he is an "international civil servant.") Mallaby writes: "... the chief challenge in poor countries is political. It's to fight the corruption that deters private investment and to create the rule of law. For this new challenge, democratic virtues such as accountability and transparency are essential, and appointing a passionate democratizer as World Bank president seems less outlandish after all." Let us hope that Wolfowitz's latest comments are mere PR. Mallick is an idiot She's probably already been inducted into the Idiot Hall of Fame, but Globe and Mail columnist Heather Mallick deserves a second entry for this one. I'll let Let It Bleed explain: "You may be happy to hear that Heather Mallick is refusing to vacation in Cuba on moral grounds (if that link doesn't work, go to Google news, type in 'Heather Mallick' and click on her March 25, 2005 column). Don't let your enthusiasm linger for too long, however: it's not the brutal communist dictatorship which keeps its citizens mired in poverty amidst a totalitarian prison that is causing her to boycott the island. It's the presence of the American base at Guantanamo Bay." As I've noted, Mallick is an idiot. Jimmy Carter on nuclear proliferation Writing in the Washington Post former President Jimmy Carter notes: "Renewal talks for the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are scheduled for May, yet the United States and other nuclear powers seem indifferent to its fate. This is remarkable, considering the addition of Iran and North Korea as states that either possess or seek nuclear weapons programs. A recent United Nations report warned starkly: 'We are approaching a point at which the erosion of the non-proliferation regime could become irreversible and result in a cascade of proliferation'." What is remarkable is the importance in the faith that the likes of Jimmy Carter have in the NPT considering that it was under its auspicies that there has been a cascade of proliferation, adding Iran and North Korea to the list of nuclear states. Yet again demostration of importance that the Left places in institutions and processes, declarations and treaties, over reality and real action that would address their ostensible concerns. More importantly, Carter illustrates the anti-Americanism that plagues the pro-NPT crowd. Consider the course of action he lays out at the end of his column and every one of them paints the United States and its NATO partners as the greatest threat to peace -- or at least the NPT. Funny line of the day Jonah Goldberg begins a serious post about how blacks who attain success always blame "The Man" for their downfall with this hilarious line: "Michael Jackson played the race card. Obviously this is not to be taken seriously since very few people consider Michael Jackson 'black' at all." Sunday, March 27, 2005
The good news from Iraq Chrenkoff's latest. Pull up a chair and grab yourself a beverage because there is lots there. Three faves: 1) From Fallujah: "Piles of rubble still line the streets here, but a few shops have opened on the main drag, schools are finally in session and a compensation program to help families rebuild made some token initial payments this month. Four months after the assault on Fallujah, in the center of Iraq's Sunni Muslim heartland, American forces working to rebuild the city say they're seeing some progress, albeit limited, in a city that's still blockaded and under a curfew. Even a little progress is an important development in a city that's been a major test for the American presence in Iraq." 2) Iraqis are taking back their streets from the terrorists: "In the violent city of Ramadi, a center of Sunni insurgent activity 60 miles west of Baghdad, the bodies of seven men were found lined up in an unfinished house on the western outskirts of town, according to eyewitnesses. Unlike the corpses elsewhere, which were mostly Iraqi police and soldiers, the bodies in Ramadi apparently were foreigners, fighters working for Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who has claimed responsibility for suicide bombings, kidnappings and assassinations. Each of the seven had been shot in the head or torso. The bodies were secretly buried in a local cemetery, the witnesses said. 'My cousins are the ones who killed them,' said Jabbar Khalaf Marawi, 42, a former army officer and Communist Party member in Ramadi. Marawi said the slayings were carried out by members of his Dulaimi clan in retaliation for the Oct. 2 killing of a clan leader, Lt. Col. Sulaiman Ahmed Dulaimi, the Iraqi National Guard commander for Ramadi and Fallujah, by al-Zarqawi's group." 3) Iraqis thankful for US presence: "Meanwhile, Staff Sgt. Jessica Kelly of Lafayette, La., and her unit are trying to help an Iraqi boy paralyzed at the start of the war in an explosion. 'When his mom kisses me and praises Allah that I'm here, I can't think of a more noble cause to be away from my own family, than to be doing this,' says Kelly." Terri update AP reports that Terri Schindler-Schiavo has received communion and last rites: "The severely brain-damaged woman received a drop of communion wine on her tongue — her only sustenance in nine days — after her husband allowed her to receive the sacrament." Sustenance indeed. This earlier AP story reports that Terri's brother Robert Jr. asked protestors to go home and celebrate Easter. It briefly reported that Terri received the Blood of Jesus (which news story insist on calling wine). Both stories report that the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo disagree over the state of Terri and whether she is "passed where physically she would be able to recover." The AP stories also refer to the fiance of Terri's loving, dedicated husband Michael but do not going into any details. I wonder what she's thinking right now. WorldNetDaily reports that Florida Governor Jeb Bush has reiterated that he has done all that he can within the confines of the state constitution. Mark Steyn says it is grotesque that Terri's battle for life is now caught up in various legalisms and that after 15 years, the state is going to kill her: "This is not a criminal, not a murderer, not a person whose life should be in the gift of the state. So I find it repulsive, and indeed decadent, to have her continued existence framed in terms of 'plaintiffs' and 'petitions' and 'en banc review' and 'de novo' and all the other legalese. Mrs. Schiavo has been in her present condition for 15 years. Whoever she once was, this is who she is now -- and, after a decade and a half, there is no compelling reason to kill her. Any legal system with a decent respect for the status quo -- something too many American judges are increasingly disdainful of -- would recognize that her present life, in all its limitations, is now a well-established fact, and it is the most grotesque judicial overreaching for any court at this late stage to decide enough is enough. It would be one thing had a doctor decided to reach for the morphine and 'put her out of her misery' after a week in her diminished state; after 15 years, for the courts to treat her like a Death Row killer who's exhausted her appeals is simply vile." This seems as good a reason to dislike Eggleton as any On the Fence on newly appointed senator, and former Minister of Defence 'til he awarded untendered contracts to an ex, Art Eggleton: "I must admit here, however, that the main reason I don't like Eggleton much is that he once butted into a buffet line at a play opening I was at. I knew then he was no democrat." Terri update (Easter Sunday edition) There are many reports, the essence of which are 'it's all over but the waiting.' See the stories by CNN, AFP and Reuters. It's Easter, I plan to spend the day with my family. Might blog late tonight, otherwise, I'm back full steam tomorrow with updates twice a day on news developments and links to significant commentary. Saturday, March 26, 2005
Terri update (evening edition II) I said earlier that no news is bad news. Now any news appears to be bad news. This AP story reports that the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo and his lawyer are aruging about Terri's true condition. The Schindlers say Terri's eyes and tongue are bleeding, Michael and his lawyer deny that. Terri's brother says release video and photos to prove it. Two other developments reported in the AP story is that 1) the Schindlers have indicated that they will file no more appeals, that essentially they have exhausted their legal options and 2) the Schindlers are asking Michael to allow Terri to receive communion tonight. It doesn't appear that will happen. This more recent AP report notes that the Florida Supreme Court has ruled against the Schindlers' request that the feeding tube be re-inserted based on evidence that Terri indicated that she wanted to live. Earlier this week, police arrested three children (14, 12, 10) who were trying to bring water to Terri. That is, the state that shouldn't get involved, even though it was the state (Judge Greer) who mandated the slow-motion starvation execution by ordering the feeding tubes removed March 18, got involved in doing everything it can to ensure that Terri dies. To view pictures of the arrest, look here. Hugh Hewitt is no writing a column for World magazine. His first installment notes the shabby treatment the federal courts gave the Congressional mandate to do something to save Terri and that there could be political fallout for doing so. The Dawn Patrol led me to two interesting pieces. The first, former judge Robert N. Going writes a damning article about the judiciary and concludes: "And yet, one need not have years of legal training and judicial experience to suspect that something is really wrong with a system that not only allows but even DEMANDS that an innocent disabled woman be starved to death." In the other, conservative radio host and WND columnist Kevin McCullough, reiterates the case that pulling the feeding tube is cold-blooded murder. Over at The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, John F. Kilner has a piece that adds little that hasn't already been said except for this one observation: "If Terri is allowed to die, it is essential that every effort be made to minimize her suffering. News reports today of her parched lips are disconcerting, because keeping the mouth moist is an important way to guard against the experience of dehydration being painful." I've heard rumours that Michael has prevented nurses from putting ice chips on Terri's lips and tongue, which nurses at the hospice describe as "protocol for patients that are foregoing nutrition and hydration." Protocol? That seems to imply that there are more cases than just Terri, leaving one to wonder how often patients are starved to death. The blog of the American Journal of Bioethics has been curiously quiet this past couple of days -- just a few entries that say little. Eric Cohen has much to say in this week's Weekly Standard. He begins: "But the Schiavo case is also a tragic example of the moral and legal confusions that govern how we care for those who cannot speak for themselves, especially those whose lives might seem less than fully human. And so we have a responsibility to confront what has happened and why--especially if we are to understand our moral obligation as caregivers for incapacitated persons, and our civic obligation to protect those who lack the capacity to express their will but are still human, still living, and still deserving of equal protection under the law." Cohen says that the question of whether Terri wanted to live in such a condition -- the issue of autonomy that liberals and libertarians are concerned most about -- is insufficient to protect Terri's interests. Cohen concludes: "On March 18, 2005, the day her feeding tube was removed, Terri Schiavo was not dead or dying. She was a profoundly disabled person in need of constant care. And despite the hopes of her parents, it was unlikely that her medical condition would improve, even with the best possible care administered by those with her best interests at heart. But even in her incapacitated state, Terri Schiavo was still a human being, a member of the Schindler family and the human family. As such, she was still worthy of protection and care, even if some of those closest to her wished to deny it." This is certainly worth reading; perhaps the single best piece I've read on the broader issues yet. Cohen's piece is infinitely better than David Brooks' New York Times column that briefly makes the same point: "The central weakness of the liberal case is that it is morally thin. Once you say that it is up to individuals or families to draw their own lines separating life from existence, and reasonable people will differ, then you are taking a fundamental issue out of the realm of morality and into the realm of relativism and mere taste." But otherwise, Brooks demonstrates a proclivity of his, namely to make the case that both liberal and conservatives are right and wrong up to a point. This time it doesn't wash. Wendy's gives customer the finger CNN reports that a customer in a California Wendy's found a human finger in his chili. Ben Gale, director of the department of environmental health for Santa Clara County, said "This individual apparently did take a spoonful, did have a finger in their mouth and then, you know, spit it out and recognized it." The customer then vomitted. The short report concludes, "Wendy's is the third-largest hamburger chain." That might be "was the third-largest hamburger chain." Terri update (evening edition) There isn't much news to report and unfortunately right now, no news is bad new. I'll have an update up later tonight. Terri update (Saturday morning edition) Computer problems prevented an update last night. Sorry about that. The big news today is an AP story reporting that Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, told a judge that she, Terri, tried tell them that she wanted to live. The AP: "Pinellas Circuit Judge George Greer was expected to announce a decision by noon Saturday on the motion by Bob and Mary Schindler claiming their daughter said 'AHHHHH' and 'WAAAAAAA' when asked to repeat the phrase 'I want to live'." Of course, none of this matters because Judge Death has ruled that her husband's hearsay claim that more than 15 years ago she indicated in a flip remark during a made-for-TV movie that she wouldn't want to live hooked into machines is the only thing that matters. The New York Times has the report on the legal challenge based on this information. The Schindlers also renewed their calls upon Governor Jeb Bush to intervene, although the Governor says he has exhausted all legal avenues. Bush did send state police to end the slow-motion starvation execution of Terri but did not proceed to her hospice when they were informed that they would be turned away by local police. This New York Times story relates the relationship between Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers and it includes something rarely mentioned in mainstream media reports, namely the possibility that Michael abused Terri: "In recent years, the Schindlers have also described Mr. Schiavo as a controlling husband who would keep track of the mileage on his wife's car, lash out at her for spending money and hound her to stay thin. They have said that the couple fought in the months before Ms. Schiavo's collapse and that Mr. Schiavo was, perhaps, harming his wife." The Times story also alludes to the idea that the relationship broke down between the in-laws when Michael won a settlement over Terri's obstetrician treatment for fertility therapy which the now estranged husband claims caused the debilitating potassium deficiency. USA Today reported yesterday that the fight over Terri's life may be as much about money as it is about her wishes and her life. Previously, Michael Schiavo and his lawyer have claimed that the million-dollar settlement he won to care for her had been spent. WorldNetDaily reported yesterday that Michael Schiavo's lawyer George Felos, as well as other lawyers he has used, contributed to Judge George Greer's re-election campaign last year. Greer has presided over this particular case since the late 1990s. The Toronto Star had an excellent article by William G. Stothers, deputy director of The Center for an Accessible Society in San Diego. Strothers says: "First thing: Terri Schiavo is not terminally ill. She is severely disabled with a brain injury. She is not hooked up to any life-support systems. For 15 years she has relied on a feeding tube for food and water. Her organs function normally. So why does anyone want to kill her? "Kill" is the correct word here. Removing her feeding tube will cause her death. She will die by starvation and dehydration." He says that the disabled are especially concerned about what's happening. He concludes: "As a person with a severe disability, I am deeply troubled by the Schiavo saga. I will commit my own wishes to a legal document. But will that be enough? Out here on the ragged edge, we're worried." From the "If Terri were a criminal she'd have a chance" file, Jack Dunphy notes in a column at NRO: "Brian Nichols, the man accused of murdering four people in Atlanta earlier this month, will stand trial for those crimes sometime in the next year or two. Unless something extraordinary is revealed during his trial he very likely will be convicted and sentenced to death. If at some point during the appeals process he sustains an injury similar to that suffered by Terri Schiavo fifteen years ago, will our robed masters twiddle their thumbs just as impassively as he is rolled to the execution chamber? No, they will not. They will tell us that even a convicted mass-murderer is deserving of all the protections the law can provide, the protections now being denied to a helpless, innocent woman." Jonah Goldberg had an excellent post yesterday on The Corner: "I listened to Michael Schiavo's lawyer on the radio complaining at the outrageous rhetoric from opponents of having her feeding tube removed. Starvation and dehydration, he explained, are part of the natural process of death. Thousands of patients dying from cancer and the like stop eating when the end comes he explained. It is natural to refuse sustenance when dying, he assured reporters more than a bit indignantly. The only problem is that she hasn't refused food and water, she's been denied food and water. She isn't dying of something that causes her to taking food and fluids, she's dying because she's being denied such things. If she must be put to death can we at least speak clearly that this is what's being done?" And to be clear about what is happening during all the legal and political wrangling, consider the words of Robert Schindler Jr., Terri's brother, as quoted in yesterday's New York Sun: "It's very frustrating. Every minute that goes by is a minute that Terri is being starved and dehydrated to death." Friday, March 25, 2005
A question for Dallaire Hacks and Wonks has this to say about the Senate appointment of Lieutenant-General Romeo Dallaire: "I've lost some respect for Romeo Dallaire today. How do you sit as a Liberal when their government is being so negligent on Darfur? The latest numbers I've seen is 380,000 deaths in that region. Yet nothing but talk from our Liberal government. How do you justify it Mr. Dallaire? How?" Morgentaler's honourary degree at UWO London Free Press columnist Herman Goodden has an open letter to the honourary degree committee of the University of Western Ontario wondering what the heck they're doing bestowing such an honour on Henry Morgentaler. Goodden says that, "Abortion is the most intractably divisive social issue of the last half century." UWO is not hosting a debate of two sides but tacitly endorsing a person who not only supports but commits abortion. Notably, UWO is the first university to grant Morgentaler an honourary degree. Let's hope no other follows its lead. President Bush's Easter message Can be found here. Highlight from his short message, this: "I send greetings to all those celebrating Easter, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Through His sacrifice and triumph over death, Christ lifted the sights of humanity forever. In His teachings, the poor have heard hope, the proud have been challenged, and the weak and dying have found assurance." Economist endorses Kofi's plan to fix the UN The "venerable" magazine The Economist (it seems that one cannot refer the London-based weekly without that particular adjective) says that Kofi Annan's proposed reforms for the United Nations will fix much of what ails the international body but adds that it will extremely difficult to get the necessary two-thirds votes for change because of some countries' vested interests. I would add this: if the reforms get the required approval it is precisely because the reforms are not significant enough to change the UN and challenge such vested interests. Real reform won't pass but fake reform might. Remember this in the months to come as the media reports that progress is being made in cleaning up the problems at Turtle Bay. People know little about the stupid Charter There has been a small controversy about The Western Standard handing out buttons at the recent Conservative Party convention that read "It's the stupid Charter," a response to the Young Liberals who earlier this month distributed buttons that said, "It's the Charter, stupid." Le Blog de Polyscopique says perhaps a better slogan would be "Read the Charter, stupid," adding: "More people should read the Charter. The problem is that though, according to a 2002 poll from the CRIC, 88% of Canadians think that the Charter is a 'good thing for Canada,' 52% of Canadians are, according to a 2002 poll by Léger Marketing, unable to name a single right which is protected by the Charter. This is even more astounding considering all the easy answers that could have been given, for example freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to life or equality rights. In other words, yes we think that the Charter is a wonderful thing, but please don't ask us what's actually in there." Last year during the federal election, I asked several people who said they were not going to vote Conservative because the party opposed the Charter, what part of said document did the voter like best. I mostly got fuzzy answers ("all of it" and "the principles it upholds") but upon further examination it was clear they had no idea what the Charter actually says. One person, who was strongly anti-American (another reason he opposed the Conservatives) said he was proud that the Charter, "Canada's founding document," (those were his words) upheld "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Truly. And truly sad although I did not find it terribly surprising. Here's a suggestion: have citizens answer a five-question, multiple choice test on the Charter before they get to vote. Good Friday Terri update (morning edition) Most of the news coverage (such as this AFP story) seems to reflect the growing sense that the Schindler family has exhausted all their legal options and that the end is near. Time to move onto another story, this one is getting boring for reporters, although at least they got a trip to Florida. Thankfully, numerous commentators haven't yet tired of the story. Thomas Sowell, as he does so well, notes a liberal hypocrisy: "People who say that the government has no business interfering in a private decision like removing Terri Schiavo's feeding tube somehow have no problem with a squad of policemen preventing her parents (or anyone else) from giving their daughter food or water. Do those who want to keep the government out of private decisions think that the police are not the government? Do they think that the judges who authorized this are not the government?" At NRO, Andrew McCarthy looks at whether Terri's due process rights have been violated: "Maybe it will turn out that the evidence is sufficient, and that the appropriate thing to do is remove the tube and end Terri's life. But at least then we would know, as a society, that Terri was actually given what the constitution commands: due process of law. She has not gotten it to date. Not by a long shot. At issue for McCarthy is, "whether the clinical observation on which the Florida court relied (essentially, a 45-minute examination by a neurologist who is a right-to-die zealot) was adequate for a death case; and whether Michael Schiavo was credible when he suddenly remembered, seven years after the fact, that Terri happened to mention that she wanted to die if she were ever in a PVS." The Los Angeles Times reports that the California Medical Assocation condemned Congress and the President for getting involved. I don't know, but this reeks of ... well ... politics, doesn't it? Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger says that the developments of the past week ensure that future discussions of such ethical questions are not conducted purely among professionals such as the California Medical Association or lawyers in front of judges. David Limbaugh says that this episode in the culture war demonstrates that the Culture of Death has the upper hand: "What this boils down to is that our courts (and far too many in society) are so acclimated to our Culture of Death that they are erring on the side of death. Despite enormous doubts about Terri's condition, her intentions, and even her initial injury, the courts are determining that in the end, none of this matters because anyone in Terri's diminished state (no matter what it specifically is) is better off dead. It's essentially a court-ordered murder based on the court's subjective assessment of the victim's quality of life -- an assessment tainted by its diminished reverence for human life." The last word goes to Thomas Sowell (from the aforementioned column): "Terri Schiavo is being killed because she is inconvenient to her husband and because she is inconvenient to those who do not want the idea of the sanctity of life to be strengthened and become an impediment to abortion. Nor do they want the supremacy of judges to be challenged, when judges are the liberals' last refuge." Thursday, March 24, 2005
Terri update (evening edition) The AP reports that the Schindler family is running out of options to save their daughter's life. It also notes that: "As of Thursday afternoon, Schiavo, 41, had been without food or water for six full days and was showing signs of dehydration — flaky skin, dry tongue and lips, sunken eyes." In another AP story, it is reported that Governor Jeb Bush is frustrated that he can't do more -- and that he fears that some people will think he is not doing enough. In the report in tomorrow's Washington Post I am troubled by what this paragraph describes: "Law enforcement officers and an attorney for Morton Plant Hospital, where Schiavo's tube was to be reinserted, told Felos and his legal team that the governor's office had notified them that agents from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement were preparing to take custody of Schiavo and drive her to the hospital. Those phone calls prompted Felos to ask Greer to issue the order that was handed down late Wednesday afternoon blocking the state from taking custody and authorizing 'each and every' sheriff's deputy in the state to stop any attempt to remove Schiavo from the hospice." This report from WorldNetDaily finds that Judge George Greer might have "fallen half in love with death" as Peggy Noonan put it. WND reports: "Judge George Greer, the Florida county jurist at the center of the Terri Schiavo case, ruled against a woman who was fighting to keep her husband alive in 2000. While Greer has ruled consistently with husband Michael Schiavo, who seeks to terminate his wife's life by depriving of her of food and water, the parallel case suggests the judge may have a predisposition to removal of any life-support devices rather than an inclination toward the legal guardian." Wesley Smith and Ralph Nader issue a joint press release calling for Terri's feeding tube to be re-inserted and therapy tried once again which, they quite correctly say, is the only way to resolve a case in which there is conflicted expert opinion on her status. Terri update (afternoon edition) The Supreme Court of the United States did not hear the case. The Washington Post and Reuters are among those with stories. Nothing surprising, nothing newsworthy. Terri continues to starve and dehydrate, the slow-motion execution now in its seventh day. Florida Governor Jeb Bush is still working on the case trying to gain custody of Terri. Earlier today, Judge George Greer refused a request to have a feeding tube re-inserted so that Florida Department of Children and Families could examine the case. Here's Governor Bush's statement from yesterday. Here's a highlight: "If a prisoner comes forward with new DNA evidence 20 years after his conviction suggesting his innocence, there's no doubt that the courts in our state, or all across the country for that matter, would immediately review his case. We should do no less for Terri Schiavo. I'm urging the Florida Senate to take up the bills and they are in debate right now as we speak, on their bills that will be part of the process, we believe, that will provide protection for Terri Schiavo and other vulnerable profoundly disabled Floridians. To all those who have expressed their support for Terri Schiavo, I have a message and that is that your prayers and your petitions are working. Those who value life need to act accordingly." At NRO, William Bennett and Brian T. Kennedy insist Governor Bush must do everything in his power and even risk impeachment if he must. Here's an idea, from Ann Coulter: send in the national guard. Lest drastically, according to WorldNetDaily, Florida Department of Children and Families says that they might be able to intervene without court sanction. Then do it! New Labour's new low Lately, Britian's Labour Party has been alluding the Jewishness of Tory leader Michael Howard and finance critic Oliver Letwin, comparing them to Fagin, illustrating them as pigs and calling Howard a blood-sucker (an unfortunately not untypical Muslim slur against Jews but also an allusion to Howard's Transylvanian roots). It was all very disgusting. But reaching new heights (lows?) of disgusting, party officials have now they turned to calling these Jewish politicians Nazis. Recently, Labour MP Kevin McNamara said Howard's proposed program cracking down on unauthorised travellers had the "whiff of the gas chambers about them." Others, too have compared them to Nazis. Howard, it might not been known, lost relatives in the Holocaust; where is that classic Labour compassion and sensitivity? The Daily Mail has a strong editorial criticizing Labourites for this line of attack: "This is the politics of the gutter." And it is politics; after all, While the paper does not mention this, Labour needs the votes of the country's growing Muslim population and, sadly, such Jew-baiting attracts many such voters. But as the Daily Mail's editorial notes, "Such sickening tactics speak volumes for the bankruptcy of Labour's thinking." 'More than a private concern' Fantastic run-down of everything the media is not reporting or being clear on in the case of Terri Schindler-Schiavo, by disability-rights lawyer Harriet McBryde Johnson in Slate, including countering the type of thinking that "transforms feeding tubes into fetish objects." Aside from those issues, I found this paragraph very compelling: "I hope against hope that I will never be one of those people in the shadows, that I will always, one way or another, be able to make my wishes known. I hope that I will not outlive my usefulness or my capacity (at least occasionally) to amuse the people around me. But if it happens otherwise, I hope whoever is appointed to speak for me will be subject to legal constraints. Even if my guardian thinks I'd be better off dead—even if I think so myself—I hope to live and die in a world that recognizes that killing, even of people with the most severe disabilities, is a matter of more than private concern." The State Department must do more for democracy in Libya The New York Sun's Eli Lake writes about imprisoned Libyan opposition leader Fathi el-Jahmi who has fallen "dangerously ill." He has been in and out of prison for 32 years and he was arrested again (but not charged) last year, just two weeks after being released when he repeated calls for Muammar Gadhafi to hold elections. The U.S. State Department is calling for outside doctors to see el-Jahmi. That's not enough. Nattering nabobs of negativism David Fromkin writes in the New York Times that the Middle East of 2005 is not the Europe of 1989. He's right, of course, but the tone of his article is that the change sweeping the region is not signficant and is likely to fail anyway. He's wrong on that. Nukes and a safer world Earlier this week, the Boston Globe ran a piece about Kenneth N. Waltz, adjunct professor of political science at Columbia University, who believes we should be less concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Waltz has long argued that such weapons made the world safer and more stable by discouraging reckless military adventurism. True in the past when even the Soviet Union were cautious in their quest for empire as to prevent global catostrophe. But they were athiests and relatively (compared to Kim Jong Il) sane. What about Islamic fanatics and madmen? Their intention, at least the formers', is to provide a nuclar shield under which to destabilize entire regions (Iran against not just Israel but Saudi Arabia, for example). Walter is against proliferation, to be clear, saying most countries don't need them. He adds that countries use them for defensive reasons. That's also true. What's changed, however, is that some nations, such as the Iranian example mentioned earlier, want to use them as a deterence to provide them impunity while threatening their enemies. Sometimes, it seems, we are capable of learning the wrong lessons from history. The Religious Right united The New York Times has a fairly decent story on how Catholics and evangelicals work together, draw inspiration from one another and the like. While ostensibly a story about Terri Schindler-Schiavo, the first half of it is useful for those who want to understand (or appreciate) how religious conservatives operate in the public square. Terri update (morning edition) Mostly commentary follows. Powerline has several excellent post. This one on the famous video which leads to this observation: "Have you ever noticed how much faith liberals have in "studies"? And I believe it is undisputed that Terri Schiavo has never been given the tests normally used to diagnose a persistent vegetative state, apparently because her husband refuses to allow them." Powerline also has several posts on the now famous Talking Points Memo on the supposedly beneficial political fallout of taking up Terri's cause (here and especially here). Joshua Claybourn also has the memos covered (latest is here). In today's Opinion Journal, Peggy Noonan has a scathing column in which poses a simple question about those who are fighting those seeking to keep Terri alive: "Why are they so committed to this woman's death?" Noonan suggests, "They seem to have fallen half in love with death." Noonan says that once society (or a segment of it) generally finds that human life isn't that special, as they have in this particular case, there will be ever more killing, where any "damaged life is a throwaway life." Over at The American Spectator online, George Neumayr has a devastating piece on the Party of Death (aka liberal Democrats). He begins, "The party of abortion and euthanasia says that the absence of meaningful mental activity justifies starving and dehydrating a human being to death -- a criterion for killing that should give Democrats not known for their lucidity considerable pause. Not much meaningful mental activity is coursing through a party that considers it prudent to weep for tortured terrorists at Abu Ghraib while approving the torture of starvation for the disabled back home." Neumayr says liberals are dressing their crassness as compassion. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen (the husband of The View's Meredith Vieira), wonders today why more Democrats didn't side with death, lamenting it was only Rep. Barney Frank, "an openly gay Democrat, the Massachusetts liberal of all Massachusetts liberals, defending the Founding Fathers, federalism and the American tradition of keeping the government's nose out of a family's business," taking up Michael's cause of behalf of the Dems. In another piece at TAS's website, Clinton W. Taylor says when in doubt, err on the side of life. Taylor relates: "As 'mildly pro-right-to-die' blogger Ace of Spades noted, 'You need a written contract for any lease of land that lasts more than one year; it seems very odd to me indeed that the taking of a human life requires only one hearsay statement from one interested party'." In an excellent column, Michelle Malkin takes aim at the mainstream media, finding, "On a fundamental matter of life and death, the MSM heavyweights have proven themselves utterly incapable of reporting fairly." The Media Research Centre confirms that the MSM has failed to properly report basic facts of the case. Yesterday at the Daily Standard, Hugh Hewitt helpfully reminds us: "It was concern over Michael Schiavo's status of guardian that drove the congressional intervention, a concern primarily based on the jarring recognition that he has a girlfriend by whom he has had two children. Most people view that fact and conclude that his judgment may no longer be the judgment of a 'husband' in the way that the law anticipated a 'husband'." Hewitt disparages Congressional use of the courts in the way they have this past week (even if it is justified) but provides some context in how said institution has paved the way for such intrusions. Hewitt's conclusion is also worth repeating: "Whenever the collective attention of the country turns to one drama, all sorts of unexpected revelations occur. In this case, we see confirmed two longstanding assumptions of the center-right: Courts will often wrongly defy Congress and the president; and a large section of the left has nothing but contempt for people of faith." In the Best of the Web yesterday, James Taranto dismantles death penalty analogies to Terri's plight: "Many commentators on the Terri Schiavo case have raised the issue of the death penalty by way of accusing the other side of inconsistency. For the most part, we think the accusation is bunk, on both sides. Supporters of capital punishment want to kill killers on the ground that they're guilty, while supporters of euthanasia want to kill (or hasten the death of) people whose lives are, in their view, so diminished as to be not worth living. These criteria are entirely different, so there is no inconsistency in favoring one while opposing the other." In a wickedly funny satire, Scrappleface says feminists have scored a victory for the right to choose (death). From that satire: "Michael Schiavo lives with another woman and their two children. He developed this 'backup family' according to his lawyer, 'to assuage his eventual grief over the coming loss of Terri -- the woman he loves to death'." Ouch. Also regarding Terri's loving but murderous husband, Orlando Sentinel columnist Kathleen Parker, says of Michael: "But the fact that Schiavo's fate has rested in the hands of a man who is her husband in title only is both mystifying and maddening. If we resolve nothing else, some of our energy will be well spent examining the criteria used to determine who is best qualified to protect a disabled person's interests." Parker adds: "Even granting Michael Schiavo the benefit of the doubt, however, his insistence that Terri be starved to death when her parents want to care for her borders on the bizarre." From the "Too bad Terri isn't a murderer" file, this Rocky Mountain News editorial lambasted the federal courts for taking their time in deciding Terri's case and concludes: "Congress in our view does have the prerogative to intervene. After all, convicted murderer Scott Peterson will surely exhaust the federal appeals process in California to comply with the federal Constitution's requirement of due process before deprivation of life. Terri Schiavo's life is being taken from her on what appears to be a much lighter burden of proof." I've been critical of the lack of comment from American bishops. I missed Washington DC Cardinal Theodore McCarrick's comments from Monday. It really isn't much but at least he mentioned the issue. Two weeks ago, Philadelphia Cardinal Justin Rigali, issued a statement on Terri's "expected" starvation and dehydration. It is more strongly worded but it would be nice to have something more recent. I think this editorial from The Guardian is the first one to suggest that ironically President George W. Bush is fighting to save Terri Schindler-Schiavo yet Terri's best chance to return to health (it claims) is embryonic stem cell research. Clever bunch, they. (Actually Wikipedia reports that businessman Robert Herring, who has offered $1 million to Michael Schiavo in exchange for guardianship over Terri, believes embryonic stem cell research may one day save her, suggesting, perhaps, his interest in her as a guinea pig.) The Los Angeles Times has added its voice to those saying that starving to death isn't that bad. And writing in The Guardian, former Bill Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal adds his voice to those complaining that the Republicans have over-stepped in their boundaries in trying to save a starving woman, concluding, "As in tribal cultures, a confederacy of shamans - Bush, Frist and DeLay - have appeared to conduct rites of necrophiliac spiritualism." Ah, the Clinton crowds and classiness. Is Terri Schiavo the Roe vs. Wade of our Generation? (The following is an open letter signed by several Catholic commentators born after Roe v. Wade, including myself.) As we commit this reflection to writing, Terri Schindler-Schiavo has spent the past five days without food and water. Terri's survival is now a matter of Divine Providence, for even if her feeding tube was restored, only a miracle could prevent Terri's organs from suffering irreversible damage after five days without nutrition and hydration. All of the undersigned are Catholics in full communion with Rome. We denounce this slow and painful execution of Terri Schindler-Schiavo. We denounce this execution as gravely immoral, fundamentally unjust, and a gross violation of the Natural Law. Pope John Paul II stated a little over a year ago that nutrition and hydration, even when administered through medical assistance, remain "a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act." In short, eating and drinking are common to every living human. "Death by starvation or dehydration is, in fact, the only possible outcome as a result of their withdrawal," the Holy Father continued. "In this sense it ends up becoming, if done knowingly and willingly, true and proper euthanasia by omission." Thus we denounce the starvation and dehydration of Terri Schindler-Schiavo as the deliberate euthanasia of a disabled woman. Moreover, we denounce this execution as gravely immoral. The culture of death alleges that Terri is in a persistently vegetative state. We respond with the following proclaimed by the Holy Father: "Even our brothers and sisters who find themselves in the clinical condition of a 'vegetative state' retain their human dignity in all its fullness." In other words, Terri is a human person. She is part of God's creation and she enjoys the dignity common to every human person. No human power possesses the moral authority to pass judgment upon Terri's life. For as the Holy Father reminds us, "The value of a man's life cannot be made subordinate to any judgment of its quality expressed by other men." Euthanasia is neither a matter of personal choice nor a matter of private morality. "Whatever its motives and means," article 2277 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "direct euthanasia consists is putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable." To this teaching, the Holy Father adds: "The evaluation of probabilities, founded on waning hopes for recovery when the vegetative state is prolonged beyond a year, cannot ethically justify the cessation or interruption of minimal care for the patient, including nutrition and hydration." In short, Terri's disability and medical condition do not negate her essential dignity as a human person. Nor do Terri's disability and medical condition limit her fundamental right to life. Each of the undersigned was born during the 1970's. As members of Generation-X, each of us survived the abortion holocaust ensuing from Roe vs. Wade. A quarter of our generation did not. In the name of medical privacy and personal choice, a quarter of our generation found itself butchered from the womb. Abortion has claimed more lives among our generation than the combined effort of AIDS, drugs, and gang violence. Yet our blood has not satiated the culture of death. In the name of medical privacy and personal choice, the culture of death now seeks the blood of our elderly, our disabled, and our terminally ill. Like Roe vs. Wade, the execution of Terri Schindler-Schiavo is a defining moment in the culture war. It sets a precedent whereby our society no longer judges our elderly, our disabled, and our terminally ill as fully human. Terri represents every North American with special needs. In allowing an estranged husband to insist upon the execution of his disabled wife, and in allowing an activist judiciary to sanction such an execution because of the woman's medical condition, we allow society to redefine the essence of our humanity. For society now judges each of us by our perceived productivity; our potential contribution to society must now meet some external quantitative standard. Otherwise society judges our quality of life as unworthy of quantity of life. An old adage comes to mind: Those who fail to understand history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. This mistake is all too reminiscent of German eugenics in 1933, as well as the politics of abortion initiated by Roe vs. Wade in 1973. In our collective arrogance, we as a society refuse to learn from these mistakes. Thus we endanger the ten percent of our population with special needs. And if we may draw a lesson from modern history, what begins as reckless endangerment will soon entrench itself as social obligation. For as Fr. Richard John Neuhaus reminds us, "Where orthodoxy is optional it will soon be prohibited." Conversely, we have learned from the culture war over abortion and the homosexual agenda that the opposite is also true: Where immorality is tolerated it will soon be imposed. "First you kill those who want to die," forewarns the American Catholic ecumenist Dr. Bill Cork. "Then you kill those whose family wants them to die, then those where one family member wants them to die, and then those whose families want them to live. Finally, you kill those who want to live but who get in the way of the state." The starvation and dehydration of Terri Schindler-Schiavo is nothing short of a diabolical attack upon the delicate wonder and beauty inherent in human life. This includes the lives of the elderly, the disabled, and the terminally ill. It is a moral catastrophe of which the consequences will equal or exceed Roe vs. Wade, for in as much as we starve Terri of food and water, we starve our society of all that makes us civilized. Pete Vere Matt C. Abbott John Pacheco Michael Trueman Shawn Tribe Aiden Reid I. Shawn McElhinney Paul Tuns John-Henry Westen Wolfowitz's challenge Allan H. Meltzer, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, applauds the choice of Paul Wolfowitz (calling it "inspired") to head up the World Bank and suggests way in which he could reform the institution. Meltzer highlights a serious problem for the World Bank and what can be done about it: "The bank has lent $15 billion–$30 billion a year for many years. That is a lot of money in countries where many people live on $1 a day or less. Yet in many of the bank’s client countries, after years of lending, numerous villages lack potable water, sanitary sewers, rudimentary education, and immunization against common childhood diseases like measles. The Bush administration, to its credit, fought for monitored grants to work on some of these problems. It introduced the idea of pay for performance--more money comes if projects are completed--so that countries have an incentive to make projects succeed." It is now Wolfowitz's job to ensure pay for performance is fully implemented and succeeds. Wednesday, March 23, 2005
Strange political development Last November, Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar was elected to the U.S. Senate. The Rocky Mountain News reports that he is considering running for governor in 2006. Does he not like Washington DC or is his problem with the national Democrats? UN needs whistleblower protection Congressman Dana Rohrabacher writes in the Washington Times about Rehan Mullick who squealed on the oil-for-food scam at the UN. Rohrabacher says that Mullick's demotion and eventual firing "justifies more than a little skepticism about the U.N. leadership's claim that it is open and ready for reform." Terri update (evening edition) Florida Governor Jeb will take another stab at saving Terri's life. The Washington Post reports, "A Circuit Court judge here in Pinellas County issued an order preventing the Adult Protective Team of the Florida Department of Children and Families from taking Schiavo from her hospice and reinserting her feeding tube, but the possibility of an appeal or some other move by the state lent a dramatic note to the rapidly moving legal struggle." Part of the basis of Bush's action are the findings of Dr. William Polk Chesire Jr. His affidavit can be found here (pdf). Definitely worth reading. AFP reports that the case is now being appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States now that the full 11th Circuit Court of Appeal has nixed hearing it. The Fox News Channel story is here. The New York Times story on Governor Bush's intervention reports: "Judge Greer said he would rule on the state's request for intervention by noon Thursday, giving the parents of Ms. Schiavo, who have waged a seven-year legal battle with their son-on-law over Ms. Schiavo's fate, a small glimmer of hope after a succession of adverse legal rulings." Considering Judge Greer's past decisions, that glimmer is small indeed. The header on the aforementioned AFP story says "Schiavo right-to-die case headed for US Supreme Court. Will people stop calling this a right to die case. It is either a right to life case or a right to kill case, depending on the perspective (Terri and her parents or that of her estranged husband). The Code Blue Blog looks at Terri's brain and says, "Based on this evidence Terri Schiavo should have a CT scan repeated." Oh, oh, but don't look now -- liberals are conflicted because it isn't just the Religious Right that has gotten involved politically in this fight (although Joe Conason of the New York Observer joins the chorus on unseemly Republicans trying to save a life supposedly is). The Boston Globe reports on the involvement of disability groups and advocates and as such Terri has become a bipartisan issue. Sort of. (Even though we are not to politicize her. Where are the Globe editorials denouncing their political opportunism?) However, a check at the website of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc., doesn't find any mention of Terri on their front-page or their press releases. The Washington Times reports "For GOP, pro-life base trumps polls on Schiavo." (That's actually the headline.) Rush Limbaugh retorts: "Well, I would certainly hope so. What's the big deal about that?" Two conservative professors from Pepperdine University write in the San Francisco Chronicle that Republicans erred by putting Terri's life ahead of federalism. Well, to each his own priorities, I guess. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson ponders a bunch of "what ifs." Actually, he doesn't ponder them as much as raises them before concluding with useless tripe: "Neither the husband nor the family has an absolute solution. Only Terri Schiavo does, and she can't tell us what to do." And the opposite of tripe comes from Burkean Canuck, whose post reflects on Imago Dei: "How is a human life valued? Why, if it is autonomous, of course. Except that, none of us is. In the words of John Donne, 'No man is an island.' But the advocates of Enlightenment autonomy seem to suggest that the only life worth living is one lived autonomously. Life doesn't begin till a human being is "viable" and is called into question when a human person is unable to care for herself, feed herself, or swallow food. Yet, even a human person who is unable to swallow food, enunciate her deepest wishes, or live 'a self-actualized' existence is, still, human. Not by the test of autonomy, for judged by this standard she is not as free or as equal as those of us able to feed ourselves. But as someone created in the image of God, she is of inestimable worth. And, ultimately, that is the only test that matters." An equally thoughtful piece is Tony Blankely's Washington Times column which concludes: "If mankind only studies man — if we untether ourselves from the absolute injunction of our god to honor all human life — we are very likely to further morally defile ourselves and our civilization, even with the very best of decent intentions." Lastly, please pray not only for Terri Schindler-Schiavo but also her family, especially her parents. In recent weeks my wife and I helplessly watched our newborn daughter, unable to do anything other than look for signs that she wasn't breathing. It was horrible. I can't imagine what it would be like watching your daughter (perhaps) suffering, dying slowly, on the orders of your son-in-law. Terri update (afternoon edition) A few things. Andrew McCarthy dissects today's 11th Circuit Court ruling at NRO. Amid all the legal wranglings and the politics, it is easy to forget, as McCarthy notes at the time of the writing of his analysis, that "Terri has been starving and dehydrating for over 110 hours." The Washington Post reports that an appeal will now head to the full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. William Anderson writes in the Daily Standard, "There is no reason, medical, moral, or legal, to refrain from an attempt to provide Terri Schiavo with orally administered liquids." Anderson says doctors should try to give Schiavo water and see what happens. New York Times delights in the fact that conservatives are divided over the political fight over Terri. It is disappointing that among those that make such a story possible is William F. Buckley who says enough is enough, let Terri die. As I say, disappointing. For a more nuanced discussion (about process) among the right than the tired points Buckley makes, read The Corner. Among the tidbits worth reflecting upon is this one by Peter Robinson: "As Terri Schiavo is being starved to death, reports indicate, the successor of St. Peter is finding it impossible to hold down his food. A young woman, martyred by the culture of death. An old man who has poured out his life combatting it." UN reform Writing in Opinion Journal, Claudia Rosett says that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's much bally-hooed acceptance of the need for reform won't amount to much because 1) he doesn't mean it, 2) even if he did, he isn't prepared to do what is necessary, and 3) the couse of action he's endorsed doesn't address what ails the United Nations. Rosett begins by quoting Annan's call for reform and finds: "For announcing a U.N. reform program, it was a good start. Had Mr. Annan then apologized for the gross failure of his previous reforms, launched in 1997, and left the stage, there might be a lot more reason to hope the U.N. will shape up." But there isn't (much hope, that is) because there are "dozens of proposals to take most of what the U.N. does wrong, and do lots more of it, with lots more taxpayer money." Despite "germs" of good ideas, the reform plans are mostly wrong-headed. But it doesn't matter because Annan doesn't want to fix the UN, he wants to save his hide. Rosett, again: "... in much the same way that despots faced with popular unrest like to announce giant patriotic dam-building projects involving the pouring of huge amounts of cement, Mr. Annan is presenting his new improved save-the-world reform plan, conveniently timed to serve as a distraction from the oil-for-fraud, sex-for-food, theft, waste, abuse and incompetence stories that for the past two years have bubbling up around the same U.N. he already reformed for us back in 1997." For those serious about UN reform want to truly reform the UN, Rosett says, they should "toss this report, and start looking for a secretary-general who can get it right." Terri update Or 'On the medical procedure that opponents refer to as starvation' Early this morning, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said no to Terri's life. Bob and Mary Schindler vow to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last night, Andrew McCarthy had a wonderful post on the creeping Culture of Death: "It is worth remembering that the excruciating slowness of the execution here, the incremental-ness of death, is designed by its champions to inure us to it. After the first hour, the second passes with far less fanfare, and the third less still. I've been following this closely, and I needed to remind myself today how many hours Terri Schiavo has actually been without sustenance by counting the days since Friday afternoon and multiplying by 24. How much more easily the time passes, and the world around us changes, for those following only fleetingly, or not at all. Why should we think this is intentional? Consider, say, a month ago, before Terri's plight took center stage, if you had asked someone in the abstract: 'How would you feel about starving and dehydrating a defenseless, brain-damaged woman?' The answer is easy to imagine: 'Outrageous, atrocious -- something that wouldn't be done to an animal and couldn't be done to the worst convicted murderer.' But then it actually happens ... slowly. You're powerless to stop it, and ... you find your life goes on. There are kids and jobs and triumphs and tragedies and everyday just-getting-by. An atrocity becomes yet another awful thing going on in the world. After a day, or maybe two, of initial flabbergast, we're talking again about social security reform, China, North Korea, Hezbollah, etc. A woman's snail-like, gradual torture goes from savagery to just one of those sad facts of life. As is the case with other depravities once believed unthinkable, it coarsens us. We slowly, and however reluctantly, accept it. We accept it. The New York Times no doubt soon 'progresses' from something like 'terminating life by starvation,' to 'the dignity of death by starvation,' to 'the medical procedure that opponents refer to as starvation.' And so the culture of life slides a little more. The culture of death gains a firmer foothold ... For the culture of death, better that we sleep." Charles Krauthammer explores in his Washington Post column today what is the proper course of action in the absence of a living will and family members disagree. He says, "The problem is that although your spouse probably knows you best, there is no guarantee that he will not confuse his wishes with yours." Krauthammer adds: "...in a case where there is no consensus among the loved ones, one's natural human sympathies suggest giving custody to the party committed to her staying alive and pledging to carry the burden themselves. Let's be clear about her condition. She is not dead. If she were brain-dead, we would be talking about harvesting her organs. She is a living, breathing human being. Some people have called her a vegetable. Apart from the term being disgusting, how do they know? How can we be sure of the complete absence of any consciousness, any awareness, any anything "inside" this person? The crucial issue in deciding whether one would want to intervene to keep her alive is whether there is, as one bioethicist put it to me, 'anyone home.' Her parents, who see her often, believe that there is. The husband maintains that there is no one home. (But then again he has another home, making his judgment somewhat suspect.)" Krauthammer says the Florida law is clear, that custody goes to the spouse. He finds the involvement of Congress and President Bush a legal travesty. But he concludes: "There is no good outcome to this case. Except perhaps if Florida and the other states were to amend their laws and resolve conflicts among loved ones differently -- by granting authority not necessarily to the spouse but to whatever first-degree relative (even if in the minority) chooses life and is committed to support it. Call it Terri's law." In his Best of the Web feature at Opinion Journal, James Taranto notes something I haven't seen (or don't remember seeing) before: Michael Schiavo said that he is just doing what Terri wants, claiming that she uttered not wanting to live in such a condition while watching a TV movie nearly two decades ago. But, Taranto wonders, if that is true, why did he care for her and attempt therapy for a number years when she was first in this condition? "For eight years, in other words, Mr. Schiavo failed to carry out what he now insists--and his supporters unquestioningly assert--were her wishes. Furthermore, as we noted yesterday, after his change of heart about whether his wife could be saved, he took up with another woman, fathered two children with her and announced his intention to marry her." Great point. Taranto came to that conclusion after Michael Schiavo lawyer George Felos made a point about how Michael had cared for Terri for some time while on Larry King. Here's the transcript of that interview with Michael and Felos. Note, also, this exchange: KING: "How long were you and Terri married, Mike? SCHIAVO: We've been married for 20 years. KING: Including all this time, right? SCHIAVO: Yes. KING: How did you meet? SCHIAVO: Terri and I? KING: Yeah. Who else would it be, Michael? Pretend to be the loving husband, at least, and stop thinking of the shack up at home. Over at one the Detroit News' group blogs, Bonnie Bucqueroux says: "I am no right-to-lifer, but even I have qualms about removing her feeding tube. The issue for me is not only quality of life but manner of death. I wish Terri a speedy and painless death, but that is not one of the options. What I find excruciating is asking her loving parents to stand by and watch her slowly starve to death." No one really wants to talk about the manner of death other than the liars at the New York Times. In her column yesterday, Maggie Gallagher noted that in the 1990s, a doctor found Terri was able to swallow pudding and her own saliva and suggested that with therapy, she could do more. Gallagher wonders: "Does that matter? If Terri were capable of drinking water right now, would we be justified in withholding it from her? Are we celebrating her autonomy or her death? When does the 'right to die' become the right to kill?" Liberals for Terri have been unrelenting on Michael Schiavo. Good. Eve Tushnet makes a startling observation: "I also am struck by, but unsure what conclusion (if any) to draw from, the fact that the three prominent 'right to die'/end-of-life cases of our time all involve women: Nancy Cruzan, Karen Ann Quinlan, Terri Schiavo." I don't know either. And finally, if you have some time, William Luse has a long essay on this case, written probably some months ago, in Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. There is lots of thought-provoking stuff there but consider especially this: "Suppose she were fully awake and requested that the tube be removed. Shouldn’t we heed her wish, her right to die? I say no, basing my answer on the immemorial principle that we may not do evil that good may come. I wish it were a principle we could all agree on, but I don’t think we can anymore. We may not, by act or omission, purposely intend the death of another for whatever reason." Luse is right but we have lost the ability to appreciate what he's saying -- and the courage to say what he has, publicly. Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Chirac versus free markets According to The Independent, French President Jacques Chirac is opposing British Prime Minister Tony Blair's plans to open the borders and allow competetion for the provision of services. Quotidian Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. -- Genesis 9:6 We are on the verge of accepting the medical killing of babies Wesley J. Smith writes today at NRO that it is not just the Dutch who are killing infants, anymore. He also notes that it is increasingly found acceptable by "bioethicists" and liberal pundits. Interesting I haven't the time to check a number of things that may be pertinent to this development but for now I merely note this: Ha'aretz reports that King Abdullah of Jordan was speaking to US Jewish groups today and he warned Syria and Hezbollah are encouraging terrorism against Israel to distract the world from what happening in Lebanon and said that he has told Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that he should investigate who is behind terrorist attacks before retaliating. Anyone know what Hamas' relationship is like with the Jordian regime? Is King Abdullah diverting Israeli attention from where it should be focused? Terri update Latest AP story includes this tidbit: "In court documents, the couple [Terri's parents] said their daughter began 'a significant decline' late Monday. Her eyes were sunken and dark, and her lips and face were dry." That AP story and this Washington Post piece have the latest details on the appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Post indicates that there is a good chance that the Schindlers could draw a Republican-appointed judge (if that matters). Catholic in the Public Square explains why it was no surprise that Judge James D. Whittemore decided as he did: "The denial of relief from the Florida federal district judge was no surprise. The telltale signs were there. First, the late hour of the hearing at 3 p.m. yesterday, which was extraordinarily unconscionable given that Terri has now been starving since Friday. Second, the even more unconscionable and cruel overnight delay in issuing a decision. Any lawyer will tell you that it is routine for a Temporary Restraining Order or 'TRO' to be issued in circumstances that are far less serious than these in order to 'freeze' the situation in place while the court examines the issues more closely. The district judge here inexplicably did not issue a TRO, but took, in my view, a cruelly languid approach to deciding the case." Andrew C. McCarthy tears into Judge James D. Whittemore's decision at NRO. Also at NRO, from yesterday, is an interview with Robert P. George that is long but worth reading. Money quote -- when asked "As you know, there's some question about what Terri Schiavo's wishes were or would be now. How much should turn on this question?", George replied: "It is the wrong question. It is pointless to ask whether Terri Schiavo had somehow formed a conditional intention to have herself starved to death if eventually she found herself in a brain-damaged condition. What's really going on here — and I don't think we can afford to kid ourselves about this — is that Terri's husband has decided that hers is a life not worth having." Catholic activist Lana Jacobs was arrested trying to smuggle water into the hospice at which Terri is being executed. Reuters reports that not all of Terri's supporters are part of the Christian Right. It's too bad Terri didn't kill someone; if she did, the American bishops might being do more for her. At The Thing Is, Justin Torres wonders about the timing of the bishops' campaign against capital punishment, especially considering their silence on Terri's murder. Because, as Cait's Oz Blogs says, "Whether by incompetence or design they have the kept the public largely ignorant of the facts in the story of Terri Schiavo," you must go over to Mere Comments, where James M. Kushiner has an excellent point form run-down of the issues involved in this case. Worth printing out and giving to acquaintances who don't get why Terri deserves better -- a better husband, a better judge, better care. His final point is what is at issue, not PVS, not her relationship with her husband, not the politics, but human dignity and tolerance toward those who are leading less than perfect lives: "Granted that it may be burdensome to support someone in this state (I fail to see how it is 'vegetative,' surely a perjorative term aimed to scare people who don't want to be viewed as vegetables--a beating heart, a smile, blinking eyes are more than vegetables have). But cannot we bear such burdens rather than starve someone to death? It's what the word tolerant means: to bear with what is burdensome. Can't we be a little more tolerant of Terri Schiavo and others like her?" As William E. Rice writes in the Florida Baptist Witness, "She should matter to us." |
