21 March 2005

Bush's "pull the plug" law

Despite the wishes of Terry Schiavo, her spouse, and 19 judges in 10 different courts, the nation's Republican leadership has embarked upon a morality campaign, enacting legislation for the sake of a solo patient. Worse, it unravels in a fashion emblematic of Republican hyprocrisy, considering that in 1999, when Governor George W. Bush signed off on legislation that outright overides the patient's family wishes. Incredulously, White House press secretary Scott McClellan flat out lied when defending the Texas legislative act.
McClellan’s statement grossly distorts the nature of the law. The law does not ensure that actions are taken “in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient’s family.” In fact it codifies and legalizes the ability of doctors to stop treatment even if it goes against the explicit directive of the patient or the patient’s family.

In fact, here's a case of a Texas Children's Hospital patient that had the "plug pulled" despite wishes of the family. However, for Terry Schiavo, Bush rushed back to Washington to sign, after an emergency Sunday session in the House that went past midnight.

Texas law allows hospitals can discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient.

Oh, if the family were blessed with wealth, they could, no doubt, secure care somewhere. Perhaps the Republican "culture of life" philosphy only exists for those with enough money.

And the Republicans have the audacity to say they stand for "limited government".


For more info on this sad situation from an unbiased source I suggest:


Although, I can’t say I agree 100%, I understand that LEGALLY the Husband is right. His reasons, however, remain suspect to many; I do not know the man or his motives. I don’t want this woman to starve or dehydrate to death. I believe that even though she can’t scream about it her body will suffer greatly. Morally, I hate it. But I feel we must all submit to the LAW. Sometimes laws are wrong, sometimes it takes something like this for people to act to change an immoral law, who knows. If she must die that is sad, However, as a Christian, I think DEATH is the least of our problems as humans, If you believe in an AFTERLIFE, it is merely a NEW BEGINNING, so there is a worse fate for this poor woman and going to be with GOD is not one of them. We can only hope that this would be her decision, we can only hope the husband's motives are truly honorable, we can only hope the JUDGES have truly taken in all considerable options and made their decision on unbiased sentiments. In the end, all of this lays on their head, I have no problems with most of the efforts taken to save her life, either way we will only know when we stand before GOD what is right, all we can do for now is try our best to do what is just, hope for the best but prepare for the worst, on either side you may take considering this case.

"Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin
not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory
was not arrayed like one of these. {12:28} If then God so
clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow
is cast into the oven; how much more [will he clothe] you,
O ye of little faith? {12:29} And seek not ye what ye shall
eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind.
{12:30} For all these things do the nations of the world seek
after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these

Before a comment is made such as "way to miss the point" I know my post has nothing to do with your arguments about the Republican's hypocrisy. To me there is a higher problem here than politics. A woman’s life hangs in the balance, possibly the lives of many other disabled peoples as well. When we start to delegate quality of life and use that to decide who lives or dies we open the door to a dark closet of Possibilities.

The abstractappeal link was informative, thanks…

Respect your beliefs, but what about other cases like the one cited: or what is the "dividing line" in your estimation?

And if you believe that all suffering are entitled to health care, does that mean you're also now in favor of universal health care? Or should only those with money have the choice to live or die?
Nothing is easy. Nothing. Naum, your questions can't even be answered. Questions could be asked of you, but what's the point?
Once the door is opened, it's hard to close. We'll just become another Netherlands, where recent news indicates many patients have been euthanized without even their consent, or knowledge.
The Texas decision is abhorrent and will hopefully be changed.
But we all know where this slippery slope issue ends. Heil Hitler.....I for one don't want to go near that.
Nineteen judges? Try ONE judge; the rest simply deffered without having the guts to hear testimony, look at affadavits, or evidence.
Gutless wonders.
Lesson learned: WRITE down such notification. Word of mouth from a hubby with a girlfriend and kids doesn't hack it.
Does this mean the ever compassionate Liberals now tolerate state sanctioned murder-i.e. Capital Punishment?
Ethical dilemmas are exteremely difficult to discuss in political circles. Naum, your generalizations about this case paint the Repubs as preaching bastards (not surprised, it's your job). But c'mon, we all know there's much more to this than Terry's Wishes, communicated only by her husband (years after the fact) and judicial defferments.
It's not as simple as you, or Newcomb would paint it out to be (In the stolen words of Newcomb- "Unbelievable, my friends.")
The liberals among us are far removed from the high road in this matter. Your opinion, Naum, as generally summarized in the post is equally far removed.
Neocon, the case has went on for a long time and much examination has been done by doctors, lawyers, judges, etc... ...a lot of disinformation is being propagated by "the righties", who I may add, still form a majority who believe Congress should but out...

Two more questions...

* If you were in Terry Schiavo's place, what would you have wanted (before you entered that state, of course) to happen?

* Why is this one life prized whereas all the people who die because they were unable to afford health insurance/pay for health care?

Personally, I don't take either side in this debate, but believe it's a personal/family matter.

No, these matters are never simple, but the blatant hypocrisy and grandstanding politicization by Republican leadership is abhorrent to me. And so are the words of GWB, who's mocked the dying and shown little regard for those who possess no money or power.
There is no "dividing line" to me all human life should be cherished, and the chance of life should be given Precedence. Human Laws however are not perfect and we can only hope to do the best with what we have, If something is found to be lacking then we must strive to change it, sometimes it takes real life situations to show that fallibility of bureaucratic dogma.

"now in favor of universal health care"
I have always thought it would be nice for everyone to have healthcare, never said it wouldn’t be, Those who can however should be allowed to chose their own coverage, doctors, and treatments, and should pay for it when they are able, Ted Turner and Bill Gates should not get "free" healthcare.

"should only those with money have the choice to live or die?"
All people should have the right to live, The Declaration of Independence says We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, nowhere does it say death tyranny and the pursuit of sorrow, the right to die however is given to us all already, after all isn't death the only thing in life that is absolutely certain. I cannot measure another persons suffering, or what one person can endure versus another one, the way things are heading it would be okay to kill yourself over migraines or a toothache, suicide after all is a permanent or longtime solution for temporary or short term problems.

“If you were in Terry Schiavo's place, what would you have wanted (before you entered that state, of course) to happen?"
I would hope that my wife would truly abide by my wishes, if there is a chance life should be given that chance, some people look at Terri and seeing themselves in that shape shudder and say "Never me" but in fact it's easy to say that because most of us don’t see "injury" or "death" as inevitable, we always assume it happens to someone else. I offer myself to GOD and if I can serve him in any state, even if that means I am stuck to a feeding tube and unable to take care of myself, so be it. Where there is life there is hope, where there is hope there is faith, and where there is faith all things are possible.

"Why is this one life prized whereas all the people who die because they were unable to afford health insurance/pay for health care?"

How think ye? if a man have an
hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not
leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and
seeketh that which is gone astray? {18:13} And if so be that
he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that
[sheep,] than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.
{18:14} Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in
heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Here is a question for you:
* Because we cannot save all should we not attempt to save ONE?











http://www.all.org/issues/e... <<< I really suggest people look at this.

"Personally, I don't take either side in this debate, but believe it's a personal/family matter."


{31:8} Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction.
{31:9} Open thy mouth, judge righteously, and plead the cause of the poor and needy."
I'll just end this by saying I'm not surprised one bit by your view. Blatant hypocrisy?.....oh well.....
Lest we forget that you refraiined from answering the questions posed, that again, you prefer to dwell in a "faith based" conjured view of reality, and will go to any end to twist facts to suit you leaden philosphy…

>>ll just end this by saying I'm not surprised one bit by your view. Blatant hypocrisy?.....oh well.....

Sorry, but this latest episode is emblematic of conservative hyporcrisy… …moreso than your adulation of Kissinger, a war criminal, or the obvious contradictions you cannot attone, as evidenced by your remarks…
"and will go to any end to twist facts to suit you leaden philosphy"

Name ONE fact I have "twisted" in this issue, or any other for that matter, a fact is a fact is a fact, and just where is this question posed.....not on this subject.

I've answered this question many times here

one example

"The problem with the whole "faith based" vs. "reality based" argument is that those who claim to be "reality" based simply have "faith" that what they assume to be reality is reality. What we know about the world today is very different from what we knew about the world, say 20 years ago. Scientific explanations are constantly changing to conform to our "new" understandings of "reality" that surrounds us. It is funny that many accepted scinetific theories are not accepted by ALL scientist, though they may be considered fact if the majority of scientists come to the same conclusions. Such as the once scientific fact that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun rotated around the earth. Albert Einstein once said: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe." Never a truer word was said."

and I notice you fail to answer many questions posed to you...
* Because we cannot save all should we not attempt to save ONE?

According to JOHN KERRYs own words he is a "WAR CRIMMINAL" Yet you and your fellow LIBERALS were all over that guy with wine and roses, and actually wanted that self same profesed "WAR CRIMMINAL" to be president. Can you say double standards?

"emblematic of conservative hyporcrisy"

Why not say "Human" hypocrisy? After all we are all guilty of being hypocritical now and again. Did you ever consider that the people you support are just as guilty as those you appose of the same things you slam the right for? I know that some of the problems I have with the "leftists" the right are guilty of too, Maybe not on such a grand extreme. I don't see where changing a LAW that is wrong is hypocritical, If such was the case slavery would have never ended, nor segregation. JOHN KERRY..I voted for it, before I voted against it....Hypocrite? I'm not even going to mention all the Demoncrats, listed here on more than one occasion, who were for invading IRAQ under Clinton, (among whom were KERRY and Teddy K.) for the self same reasons Bush DID, but now are against it, nope, not going to mention them at all, ooops. Hind sight is 20/20 and some, after all, are continually looking out of their hinds.

If BUSH and KERRY went DEER hunting, the leftists would say Kerry was thinning an overcrowded population to allow stronger offspring and preserve dwindleing resources, while at the same time Bush is guilty of brutaly slaughtering poor widdle innocent fuzzy wuzzy critters.

Its not going to end NEO, it is and ever downward spiraling search for evidence, regardless of issues and truth, of so called crimes or immorality that all may be guilty of, but if BUSH is involved call the Spanish inquisition, KINDA like just before the election, when everything was "Blame Bush". Bush is to blame for gas prices, Bush is to blame for my son being killed in IRAQ (even though my son was an adult and joined the military of his own free will, knowing the purpose and mission of our military), Bush is to blame for the hurricanes.. blah blah blah blah blah...

As for Kissinger, we cannot JUDGE those who came before us by todays standards, after all the world is a totally different place, If we dug deeper I'm sure we could make a case that George Washington was guilty of "War Crimes", And I know Columbus was guilty of great Human Rights Violations....yet we still honor them greatly. I love it when the IMMORAL try to accuse the MORAL of IMMORALITY, like Saddam accusing BUSH and RUMMSFIELD of WAR CRIMES, or China saying America is guilty of human rights violations, what a JOKE!

This is the kind of statement which the leftists say Kissinger is guilty of war crimes over:

"Look, our basic attitude is that we would like you to succeed," Mr Kissinger is reported as saying. "I have an old-fashioned view that friends ought to be supported. What is not understood in the United States is that you have a civil war. We read about human rights problems, but not the context.

"The quicker you succeed the better ... The human rights problem is a growing one ... We want a stable situation. We won't cause you unnecessary difficulties. If you can finish before Congress gets back, the better. Whatever freedoms you could restore would help."

I wonder If John and Bobby Kennedy are guilty of War Crimes after all they had a plan to assassinate Castro? Anyone heard of "Bay of Pigs"?

great reading recourses here:
I think he was referring to me about Kissinger, Mondo. Naum misuses the word adulation, however; much like describing his "adulation" for Michael Moore (I seriously doubt Naum adulates the tub of lard).
The questions you pose Naum are baseless and belong in those little books read by lovers: "Would you defend me if I killed someone; Would you forgive me if I porked the mailman; yadda yadda yadda."
In any case, Dr. Kevorkian is proud of the public perception; the Netherlands' ambassador just rolls his eyes at redneck Americans.
Naum, I do sympathize with Michael Shiavo(sp?). He must feel tremendous guilt being with a woman and kids, knowing his wife is still alive (I'm not being a smartass, here; this burden must be taking a toll as he is Catholic).
But again, you stuck to the media points without addressing the meat and marrow of this issue which isn't worth hashing now anyway; this issue is moot. I'm sick of the constant attention and the bullshit eminating from all sides.
Have a nice day everyone. Happy Easter to you Naum, Mondo and Kerrysucks.
Well, definitely in agreement on that point…

::I'm sick of the constant attention and the bullshit eminating from all sides.
Happy Easter to you too, Neocon! Good to see you again!

The only thing I am going to say about the Schiavo's case is how it is another way we are MORALY cheapening life. In the eyes of the children, our society has cheapened life. Through movies, video games, and yes abortions, we send the message again and again that the value of life isn't that important. Pregnant? Go and "get rid of it!" (like "it" is a wart or something) Then when young kids kill each other or their parents and grandparents we wonder, "How could this happen?"

Happy Easter to all! :)
NEO, yeah I knew he was talking to you about HK, that doesnt make what I said about KERRY less true he was an admitted war criminal and the liberals still wanted to drink wine from his boot, It just shows how much they hate BUSH that they would support someone who was obviously flawed. The fact that they would use this case to attack BUSH shows how they are losing it and grasping at straws to find more reasons to hate the man.
I hope the poloticians know that the christian community almost 100% is against what is happening to TERRI, and even though we are not a "Christian Nation" the majority of people in america are christian and come election times it is things like this most christians will remember. i think many know this and that is why they are trying as hard as they can to save this ONE woman and the thousands of other innocent victems who may follow her because of their doctors (the one in this case who the courts are listening to saw terri one time a few years back for 45 minutes and happens to be a strong "RIGHT TO DIE" advocate who once stated "it's foolish for families to put a feeding tube in patients with advanced Alzheimer's disease."

The NAZIS started their death march against the mentally ill long before they used the same tactics to kill JEWS and others who they saw as genetic inferiors, when you turn everything into clinical terms that is when it becomes easy to commit such murders on such a grand scale.

Happy GOOD FRIDAY to all...and Happy EASTER as well. If you can please PRAY this weekend for TERRI, that her suffering will be eased and that all those involved on both sides will find peace as well and that the will of GOD shall become clear and move in peoples hearts.

Peace be with you all, and may GOD so richly bless you my friends.
>>>If you can please PRAY this weekend for TERRI, that her suffering will be eased and that all those involved on both sides will find peace as well and that the will of GOD shall become clear and move in peoples hearts.

Yes, I have been, and will continue. The whole thing makes me sick.

God Bless you and have a Happy Easter! :)
Never would have thunk. Ralph Nader arguing for Terry Schiavo...sorry, Naum, had th throw this in. I'm such a bastard!

One more and that's it! I'm a hypocrite for bringing this shit up...but Mondo and Kerrysucks will at least appreciate this:



Happy Easter and take care all....
You are a hypocrite, and along with that an ignorant and gullible lot, considering that (a) Terry Schaivo died 15 years ago, and is being artificially kept alive, (b) you've voted for and are in agreement with full fledged hypocrites that have signed legislation empowering "pulling the plug" against family wishes, advocating of pulling the plug to save hospital costs (Frist) and one who pulled the plug on his own Dad, in cases where there was indeed more hope than Schaivo, who, according to medical science, will spend her remaining time (in this world) in a PVS, (c) you've sided with those against universal health care and thus the premature death of thousands who could not afford the costly means showered upon Schaivo for even routine cancer surgeries, etc...

To frame this as discrimination against those w/disabilities is an affront to any intelligent person, and even Congress has retreated from their cowardly and hypocritical stance - again, given that babies are being killed in Texas against their parents wishes and the fact that Frist himself was an advocate of yanking the plug in these sorts of cases, as the written record attests to.

While you focus on a hopeless case and contradict your own stance on "sanctity of marriage", thousands have died prematurely because of the inability to pay (and many of these are folks w/jobs and health insurance that was inadequate and/or couldn't keep the insurance up because health concerns prevented them from keeping the job). Yet, I don't hear the same people pushing for health care for the afflicted.

Happy Easter… …sorry, I'm not even sure that I could make the decision Michael Shiavo made (though I could now after talking with Mrs. Naum about our wishes if presented w/same condition) and I can't imagine having to face nutballs and extremists making death threats and whackjobs parading in front of me… …

Mondo, if you don't support universal health care that would save lives yet you jump on a pedastol for someone being ARTIFICIALLY kept alive, yes, you are a giant hypocrite.

And to compare this case to spousal abuse really smacks of total ignorance.

Here's the Kissinger quote of the day:
"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy" - this is the guy you guys defend, yoi...
"Terry Schaivo died 15 years ago, and is being artificially kept alive,"

"she is not dead, her body is strong and healthy (or atleast it was until she was condemned to a death worse than we would give the most vile serial killer), SHE IS NOT BRAIN DEAD, EVEN THE DOCTORS SAY SHE IS ONLY BRAIN DAMMAGED! If a feeding tube is considered asrtificial means of life preservation, what difference is that than giving a baby a bottle? Perhaps we should not waste our time with those dumb little humans who cant pick up a spoon or fork, or even chew since they have no teeth?

"Mondo, if you don't support universal health care that would save lives yet you jump on a pedastol for someone being ARTIFICIALLY kept alive, yes, you are a giant hypocrite."

You dont even read my posts do you? What a piece of work you are Mr. Liberal.

"And to compare this case to spousal abuse really smacks of total ignorance."

your words: "Personally, I don't take either side in this debate, but believe it's a personal/family matter."


You are the one who is ignorant, how many people use the excuse that "child" and "spousal" abuse are "personal" and "familly" matters? Your exact statement, bud, there is the comparison.

"Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: {25:35} For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink"

"And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me. {25:41} Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"

"Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy"

type that phrase in a search engine and see how many LIBERAL blogs use that for argument, yet, more proof the LIBERALS are all playing from the same play book.

“Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” Henry Kissinger as quoted in the book “Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the United States Betrayed Its Own POW’s in Vietnam.”

"For the congregation of hypocrites desolate, and fire shall consume the tabernacles of bribery. They conceive mischief, and bring forth vanity, and their belly prepareth deceit."

great quotes from liberals

The Clinton Sex Scandals

"Hey, I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me; I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never. These allegations are false! And I need to go back to work for the American people."
~Bill Clinton

"If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people he should resign."
~Bill Clinton running for US Representative in 1974

"I misled people"
~Bill Clinton in the Lewinsky address (Translation: I lied to the American people)

"I issued a number of denials to people I thought needed to hear them"
~Bill Clinton, Grand Jury Testimony (Translation: I wanted to cover it up so I lied to you- even under oath)

"I am trying to be honest with you and it hurts me. Now..."
~Bill Clinton's Grand Jury Testimony

"Mr. Starr, have you no shame? Facts and law are always subordinated to the will of the American people."
~William Ginsburg

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"
Bill Clinton

"Clinton's an unusually good liar. Unusually good. Do you realize that?"
~Sen. Bob Kerry, Democrat- Nebraska

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet."
~Al Gore

"I tell you, that Michael Jackson is unbelievable! Isn't he? He's just unbelievable. Three plays in twenty seconds."
~Al Gore commenting on Michael Jordan

Quotes from Castro regarding Clinton

One of the best presidents the United States has ever had.
~Fidel Castro (Referring to Clinton after the Elian Gonzales affair)

Clinton likes cigars.
~Fidel Castro, 1996

Clinton on Taxes

"I will tell you this: I will not raise taxes on the middle-class to pay for these programs."
~Bill Clinton

"It might surprise you to know I think I raised them too much, too"
~Bill Clinton

A short time later: "I take full responsibility...for what we did. It was the right thing to do."
~Bill Clinton

"I have no intention of raising taxes"
~Bill Clinton

"It's your money, says President Bush when he promotes tax cuts. I disagree with his tax policy but admire his spin."
Bill Clinton - Out of Control (June 28, 2003)

more great quotes from liberals:

PETA Online

"Feeding kids meat is child abuse."

"Jesus was a vegetarian because he opposed animal sacrifice in the temple."

"McDonald's tells kids that hamburgers grow in hamburger patches. It's a lie."

Miscellaneous: The Clintons

"I experimented with marijuana at a time it suited and I did not like it, and didn't inhale."
~Bill Clinton (How did he not like it if he didn't inhale?)

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."
~Hillary Clinton, 1993 (Wow! Hillary thinks just like Lenin! see Lenin quote below)

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans..."
~Bill Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A

Miscellaneous: General

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."
~John Davis, Editor of The Earth First! Journal

"We don’t know whether in the long run the Iraqi people are better off, and the most important thing is we don’t know whether we’re better off." - On the question of whether qetting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good thing.
Howard Dean - Former Democratic Govenor of Vermont and Democratic Presidential Candidate in 2004 (Meet The Press 6/22/03).

"I would think that if you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communists."
~Jane Fonda

"One could say that Osama bin Laden and these non-nation-state fighters with religious purpose are very similar to those kind of atypical revolutionaries that helped to cast off the British crown."
Marcy Kaptur- Democratic Representative Ohio

"He's (Osama bin Laden) been out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day-care facilities, building health-care facilities, and these people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that."
Patty Murray- Democratic Senator Washington (speech to a high school honors class)

"If men like [Ken] Starr and his allies could ignore the Constitution and abuse power for ideological and malicious ends to topple a President, I feared for my country."
~Hillary Clinton (Ironic, isn't it?)

"Bush wasn't elected, he was selected— selected by five judges up in Washington who voted along party lines."
~Alec Baldwin (Supreme Court... Party lines?)

"I mean, I think, Iraqis, I think, feel that if we drove smaller cars, maybe we wouldn’t have to kill them for their oil.”
Bill Mahr - Larry King Live (November 1, 2002)

"We all need to take a deep breath and think about being a Bush daughter and having that cross to bear. I'd go out and have a couple of drinks too,"
~Julia Roberts

I know on September 11, we were all evacuated from the building, and we found ourselves standing outside—most of us. I was whisked away with no place to go. We ended up on the top floor of the police headquarters. We pulled the shades down, thinking that might make us more secure.
~Tom Daschle - Democratic Senator South Dakota

"We must uphold the promise of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton and never allow the President and his Republican friends to threaten Social Security by putting it on the Wall Street trading block."
~John Kerry- Democratic Senator Massachusetts (Speech To Massachusetts Democrat State Convention," May 31, 2002)

"Unfortunately, last spring, Republicans chose exactly the wrong solution. They made a huge tax cut their No. 1 priority -- ahead of everything else -- and discarded the framework of fiscal responsibility,"
~Tom Daschle - Democratic Senator South Dakota (January 4, 2002)

"We give an infinitesimal amount of our money to people around the world. I think what people around the world would say is it would take so little for this rich country to help and alleviate so much misery and even that is too much for them. We’re oblivious to suffering.”
~Bill Mahr - Larry King Live (November 1, 2002)

"This is a racist and imperialist war. The warmongers who stole the White House have hijacked a nation's grief and turned it into a perpetual war on any non-white country they choose to describe as terrorist."
~Woody Harrelson

"We need to change our ethic and aspire to be more Canadian-like,"
~Michael Moore

"I did not support Operation Desert Fox."
~Janeane Garofalo (ODF started On December 16, 1998)

"Bin Laden didn't come from the abstract. He came from somewhere, and if you look where ... you'll see America's hand of villainy."
~Harry Belafonte

"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all."
~Vladimir Lenin, as quoted in Not by Politics Alone.

Ouch, Naum, why get so pissy? You post these topics ans stories obviously for dialogue, not for all of us to sheepishly agree with you.
Calm down and relax...and stop tossing the word hypocrite as if you and the other half of this country shit purity and sweetness.
And WTF with Kissinger? Where in the hell does he come in on this subject? Aye Karumba.
Ignorance on our part? I don't think so....
Neocon, sorry, this topic touches a nerve with me, after seeing the death threats on the judge, the ignorance displayed by folks who know not the medical information of the case, and the fact that thousands die every day needlessly due to not having the money to spend millions like Schiavo (which w/the new tort reform legislation, we would not even be discussing this case, as that settlement has paid for the bulk of treatment for Mrs. Schiavo).

Mondo, not sure of what you hoped to achieve by posting those "liberal quotes", except again to display your ignorance on matters of history. The smear on Gore again… …here's a cluebone for you - do a search on Vin Cerf and Bob Kahn, inventors of TCP/IP (you know, the magical network glue that makes the internet possible), and they publicly backed Gore and his statement that you and others ignorantly chide him for… …AFA support for Saddam and Osama, plenty of those on the Republican stripes made bed pals with them, arming them and aiding them in the 80s/early 90s.

But way to not address the point that was made, as typical of your ramblings.

"In 1969, ARPA awarded the contract to build the most integral piece of this network -- a computerized switch called the Interface Message Processor, or IMP -- to Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN), a small Cambridge, Massachusetts company. A half-dozen engineers at BBN, who called themselves the IMP Guys, knew it was possible to do what larger companies -- including AT&T and IBM -- had dismissed as impossible. But making computer networking possible required inventing new technologies. Working around the clock, the IMP Guys met a tight deadline, and the first IMP was installed at UCLA nine months after the contract award.
A nationwide network called the ARPANET grew from four initial sites. Protocols were developed, and along the way a series of accidental discoveries were made, not the least of which was e-mail. Almost immediately, e-mail became the most popular feature of the Net and the "@" sign became lodged in the iconography of our times. The ARPANET continued to grow, then merged with other computer networks to become today's Internet. In 1990, the ARPANET itself was shut down, fully merged by then with the Internet it had spawned."


"In the ensuing years since those pioneering days that led to the birth of the Internet, Kleinrock has continued as a prime mover at the frontier of the Internet and its growth and development. He has provided an international brain trust of Ph.D. graduates (39 to date) who populate major laboratories, universities and commercial organizations and who continue to advance the state of the art in networking. As one of the youngest members elected to the National Academy of Engineering, he was a founding member of the National Research Council's elite Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB). He chaired the committee that produced this Board's first report, "Towards a National Research Network"; in presenting the findings of this landmark report, he testified for then Senator Al Gore, which precipitated the Gigabit Networking component of the US Government's High Performance Computing and Communications Initiative."




Every civilization that has ever existed has ultimately collapsed.
Henry Kissinger

Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation.
Henry Kissinger

The absence of alternatives clears the mind marvelously.
Henry Kissinger

The nice thing about being a celebrity is that when you bore people, they think it's their fault.
Henry Kissinger

The real distinction is between those who adapt their purposes to reality and those who seek to mold reality in the light of their purposes.
Henry Kissinger

There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
Henry Kissinger

University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.
Henry Kissinger

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
Henry Kissinger, New York Times, Oct. 28, 1973

Each success only buys an admission ticket to a more difficult problem.
Henry Kissinger, Wilson Library Bulletin, March 1979

He didn't say he invented it, he said "he took the initative in creating" what most now envision as "the internet".

"The internet" means a lot of different things, and most people conjure it as "the web" today. Again, TCP/IP is the network glue that holds it together now, and that did not come to fruition until the 80s.

Without Gore's support and lobbying, the Web and public exposure, we may well not be having this discussion and only us geeks (some of us liked it better when most of the public was not on...).

So, I'll take the word of Vin Cerf and Bob Kahn over yours, and what existed in the 60s/70s may be technically fit with "the internet", but it's not the open and worldwide deal that it is today, and Gore had a great deal to do with that, even if it was just keeping funding for NSF in the 80s alive, so that this technology could grow and flourish.

I'm well familiar with the history of ARPAnet - here's a nice volume that covers the pre and early years of computing dating back to WWII days - The Dream Machine: J.C.R. Licklider and the Revolution That Made Computing Personal.
Straight from the words of Vin Cerf, creator of TCP/IP:

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This "Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation's schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.

There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet's rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.

The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.

Another quote from Cerf, from an article published by John Schwartz in the 3/21/99 Washington Post:

--I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the vice president in his current role and in his earlier role as senator.
WE ALL KNOW WHAT HE SAID, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the internet."


perhaps he should have said "I took initiative in supporting the creation of the internet", but he didnt.
Sorry, but I'll take the word of Vin Cerf over "mondomojo1969"…
That's okay I'll take the words of GORE, the man who said it rather than some apologistic person who is assuming what he meant.
You performed TRANSLATION on the quote, as you admitted.

Those closest and with the most intimate knowledge of the subject backed the vice-president up in his statement.

That you and partisan minded sycophants wished to distort the message is your perogative, just as embracing myopia is the call for many… …doesn't change the fact that the spirit of the statement was quitessentially an accurate one…
"is your perogative"

yup indeed, which I and everyone, including yourself are entitled to, none more than others.

"spirit of the statement"

is subject to debate.

"quitessentially an accurate one"

Nope not at all. Again the term "supporting the creation" rather than just "creation". God could say "I took the initiative in creating the UNIVERSE." what would that mean? He created it, Where as if the Archangel Michael said "I took initiative in supporting the creation of the Universe." That to would probably be an accurate statement, as he had little to do with the actual creation, but was most likely in favor of the whole ideal.

Semantics I know, but never the less, funny as hell. BTW, at that time I was a democrat and voted for GORE, I took the same meaning then as I do now. The most amusing thing is that you pick this little statement and chose to argue about something that isn’t really important at all. While the original issue, the life and death of those who are mentally impaired is not important to you.

Liberals can preach compassion, but when it comes down to it, they are all talk, and take more issue with perceptions rather than reality. The very same people who argue against CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, and want us to put water fountains in the desert so ILLEGAL aliens won't die of thirst while ILLEGALY entering our country, are strangely silent now.


"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot:
I would thou wert cold or hot. {3:16} So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. {3:17} Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked"

Meanwhile, back at the Terri Schiavo debate ...

This is ultimately an issue of whether Michael Schiavo is a trustworthy man. Lacking any written or otherwise documented statement by Terri indicating that she "would not want to live like this," the we have only the words of her husband that she told him this.

The crux of Mr. Schiavo's legal claim is that, <i>as Terri's husband</i>, he's the <i>only person</i> with a legitimate right to speak for Terri re. whether she would want to continue to receive food and water.

Fine. Next issue: Is the man to be trusted? I say that his public actions have revealed him to be anything but trustworthy, <i>especially</i> in regard to his marriage to Terri.

Had Michael Schiavo kept his solemn vow to his wife -- to forsake all others, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health -- for the fifteen years that she has been impaired, then I would believe his claim that she wouldn't have wanted to be kept alive in this manner.

However, since he has seen fit to shack up with a woman (or has it been "women"?) other than his wife, and to make bastard babies with her, without having the decency to at least divorce Terri first ... in other words, since he has demonstrated himself to be utterly <i>untrustworthy</i> in keeping his vows to his Terri ... his testimony re. how his wife would or would not have wanted to live isn't worth jack diddly.

If his "word" at the altar has been shown false, his words in the courtroom should be given little credence.
(Oops! Guess we don't DO html here ... sorry!)
It alright, Phrank… …yours is the best argument against removing the artificial support, and I must confess that Mr. Schiavo's conduct is indeed circumspect, though from all that I've read, he's been a tireless advocate for the care of his wife, to the point of the hospitals nearly taking legal action to constrain him.

It's a tough issue, but one thing I am adamant about is a hypocritical Congress keeping the hell out of it.

Really, what is the solution? To have an "evaluation process" on the "spousal worthiness" in these cases? The sounds like it would open up a lot more potential pitfalls…
Amen Phrank!!!

Here's a question, If she cannot comprehend pain, or is not suffering, why administer MORPHINE?

Also, if she in fact did die 15 years ago, why wait for the organs to stop functioning, why not shove her in the oven and cremate her, per her loving husband’s wish, as soon as the feeding tube is removed? I THINK WHEN THE AUTOPSY IS PERFORMED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER THE TRUTH WILL BE KNOWN.

It is amazing that this dead woman has remained alive without water and food now for nearly two weeks. The fact is that administering food and water should not be considered a medical life preserving procedure, food and water is life sustaining but it is NATURAL and not artificial. Machines that make the heart, lungs, or other organs function without input, or with very little input, from the persons nervous system is ARTIFICIAL, I simply think that the laws should be changed, and those that consider a feeding tube as artificial means of life sustainment are wrong.

Here's a hypothetical, say a person has a living will, This person is female and married, and say she is discovered one day unconscious and not breathing, and say that she is revived with severe brain damage, yet instead of having the mental capacity of a 2 or three month old baby, she has the mental capacity of a four year old baby, the woman she was wouldn’t want to live as she is now, yet the person she is now, even with the mind of a four year old, wants to live and is happy, even with this diminished capacity, she wants very much to live. What’s the difference? Do we know that Terri even in her current state has no desire at all to live? I submit that the person who is alive now has as much a right to live as the person she was before this tragedy, even if the person she was would not want to.

Here's a point, If he did divorce her, perhaps he would have to give up the million dollar settlement he recieved after suing doctors for not diagnosing her bulimia, after all wouldnt the person(s) responcible for her if he did, say her parents, not then be entitled to some sort of support payments from him?


"January 1993...
Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical malpractice claim involving Terri's care; jury had ruled in Michael's favor on allegations Terri's doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to her heart failure; case settled while on appeal"

And on another note I just wanted to mention I was saddened by the news of Johnnie L. Cochran Jr.'s death. He was a good man and a larger than life lawyer.
Naum says: "It's a tough issue, but one thing I am adamant about is a hypocritical Congress keeping the hell out of it."

As an evangelical Christian conservative, I second that: 1) Republcian "conservatives" make lots of big talk about minimizing federal government intrusion into local and state affairs -- ahem, excuse me: they MADE lots of big talk about minimizing federal government intrusion into local and state affairs, until they took control of the executive and legislative branches. Congress and Pres. Bush making a federal case out of this is shameful.

And 2): While I think it's commendable that Congress and the POTUS (claim to) defend Terri Schiavo's right to life, the hypocrisy becomes all too evident when you consider that these same men and women have no qualms at all about ending the lives of tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of Iraqi civilians in the name of "liberating" them. These guys aren't "pro-life" -- they're "pro-AMERICAN-life." (That is, unless you're an expendable military man who enlisted thinking you were going to defend YOUR nation, not build OTHER nations).

Naum asks: "Really, what is the solution? To have an "evaluation process" on the "spousal worthiness" in these cases? The sounds like it would open up a lot more potential pitfalls…"

I don't think that there is a (short-term) legal solution. This is an unintended consequence of the trivializing of the marriage vows in this country. While not a solution, I think that one hopeful symptom would be an elimination of no-fault divorce laws. You take a legal (and often religious) vow, and some months or years later you can break that vow without showing any legal grounds? This is not how things should be. But I say that elimination of no-fault divorce would be a symptom, because the solution that would give rise to this symptom is a spiritual solution -- nothing less than a Christian revival will bring this (or the reversal of any other number of godless trends) about.
"Congress and Pres. Bush making a federal case out of this is shameful."

I have to disagree, When LAWS are wrong the only ones who can change them are the people in government, they have to get involved, when you have thousands of "conservative evangelical Christians" sending you emails and calling your phones, that is a call to action:



"have no qualms at all about ending the lives of tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of Iraqi civilians in the name of "liberating" them"

What a very "LIBERAL" comment, I happen to believe that the President, and Government have great qualms with the loss of any innocent life, If we could have defeated Saddam without the loss of any lives we would have done that, but that was an impossibility, even many of the Iraqi soldiers we fought against had no desire to fight for saddam, they were threatened. You ever hear of the fedaim? These were ARAB and FOREIGN FIGHTERS who worked for saddam, kinda like special forces, but more like SS of Germany, one special trademark was a small card the carried showing the severed head of a man with a bullet hole between his eyes, this was a representation of what would happen to Iraqis (and their families) who refused to fight or surrendered. My brother (who was in the 101st when they went into IRAQ) actually killed one of these guys and showed me the card he took off this guy (along with a Saudi ID) Many of these guys had al queda links, and links to other jihad terror cells. Our Government on the other hand gave saddam ample opportunity to fess up or step down, he did neither. Our Government, for the most part, does not target innocent civilians when at all possible, many times the threat to our troops is increased because of concern for the innocent. Why do you think we held off so long (over a year) before taking Falujah?
Admittedly you cant always only kill the bad guys, especially with bombs and artillery, but can you imagine the toll of (YES AMERICAN) human lives it would have taken to try and take down saddam using only small arms fire? The way to win a war is to keep as much of our guys alive and kill or capturer as many of the enemies combatants as we can (not to mention destroy as much of their weapons and or support recourses as possible).

"That is, unless you're an expendable military man who enlisted thinking you were going to defend YOUR nation, not build OTHER nations"

Really, when is the last war we fought defending our nation? You would think after WWI, WWII, KOREA, VIETNAM, CUBA, GRENADA, PANAMA, DESERT STORM, SOMALIA, BOSNIA, AND HAITI, people enlisting would realize that they can be sent to anywhere defending the U.N. or any of our allies in any situation. you would think that after Afghanistan or Iraqi freedom young people would not be enlisting, yet we have met our enlistment goals every year since the last shortage in 1999, These kids know exactly what they are getting into by enlisting, It aint about college money, It's about defending our Nations interests. You may not agree with those interests, but that doesn't mean that the job of our military is any different.
But just in this case, not the other 3K cases w/similar circumstances or where President Bush & others were advocates of "pulling the plug", but in this case, perform a weak show of political grandstanding (doing a ceremonial dance, then backing off at the first sign of poll discontent)

::When LAWS are wrong the only ones who can change them are the people in government, they have to get involved
“This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins” (1 John 4:10).

“An infinite God can give all of Himself to each of His children,” wrote A. W. Tozer, continuing, “He does not distribute Himself that each may have a part, but to each one He gives all of Himself as fully as if there were no others.” Tozer was rephrasing something that Augustine wrote in the sixth century when he said that God loves each of us as if there were only one of us.

Do you believe that? It’s comforting and encouraging to believe that, but is it true? A mother’s love is about as close to God’s love as anything you find on earth, so the true story I’m about to relate may help you put aside your skepticism, your wondering whether or not you really count in God sight, questioning whether you are important enough for Him to hear your cry, to see your tears, and feel your pain.

A psychologist was talking to a young mother and asked, “Which of your three children do you love the most?” She immediately answered, “I love all my three children the same.” Skeptically he began to refute what she had said. “Come off it now!” he said, “It is psychologically impossible for anyone to regard any three human beings exactly the same.” Confronted so abruptly, she broke down and began to cry.

Then finding her voice she said, “All right, I do not love all three of my children the same. When one of my three children is sick, I love that child more. When one of my three children is in pain, or lost, I love that child more. When one of my children is confused, I love that child more. And when one of my children is bad—I don’t mean naughty, I mean really bad,--I love that child more.” The she concluded, “Except for those exceptions I do love all three of my children about the same.” (James Hewett, Illustrations Unlimited, Tyndale, Wheaton, IL, 1988, p. 251).

A mother’s love explains how God’s love and compassion are totally focused on you when you need His help. Tozer was right. God’s doesn’t parcel or divide up His love, or love us best when we are nice and do good things; to the contrary He loves us the most deeply when we have strayed the farthest, when our needs are the greatest.

If you question that, take a lingering look at Jesus’ relationships with troubled, hurting people. You will find one of the longest conversations that Jesus ever had with anyone with a woman whose morals were loose, who was living with a man to whom she was not even married. Seemingly the farther people had strayed from the straight and narrow, the greater was the focus of Jesus’ attention on their lives.

Many people–perhaps, you, too–go through a wandering desert or maze of doubt until they really connect with the loving God who sent His son. At first, they simply know He’s out there somewhere. Then they wonder if He’s not the policeman who will record both their good and bad deeds. Then they try to believe, but keep stumbling over their failures, thinking, “Not good enough!”

Then they want God to be there for them, like a safety net to catch them if they fall, but they are still the one who is leading the way. Finally, they hear the voice of God’s son saying, “Follow me!” and realize that Jesus Christ needs to lead the way; and that’s when they cease to have God be their co-pilot and embrace His Son as Lord, putting God first in what they do.

He loves you unconditionally. Now love Him back the same way. Remember Jesus’ question to Peter, “Do you love me?” Listen carefully, and you’ll hear that voice asking the same question. He’s listening for your answer. If you love Him, follow Him.

Resource reading: John 21:15-25
Hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hypocrisy.....this word is always thrown around by both sides, and usually over the same issue. It's fascinating, really.


Defending Terry, but signing a law in Texas that is equally shameful. Yes. Can't argue that one Naum.

Legislating from DC in this one single affair. YES. I don't have a problem with Florida Legislature doing it, though; somehow, the judges overturned the state legislation as well. Go figure. Can anyone tell me why?

Charging government is interfering with the process. NO. It's been involved for quite awhile. Can you say Courts? Besides they got involved with Roe V Wade over another woman's body...hmmmm...okay, maybe that point is pushing the tangent.

Claiming this is what Terry wanted, based on informal conversations heard only by Michael Schiavo. Judge Greer determined this to be a finding of FACT, but would laugh at Charles Manson if he SAID he didn't murder anybody. In this case, especially, informal dialogue DOES NOT constitute FACT. This is hypocritical on its face to defend one's "wishes" that cannot be determined to be, in fact, fact. To constantly parrot the line that the courts heard the facts is patently false.

Overturning a capital case because a juror prayed, for God's Sake, but refusing to agree to another finding of facts to determine whether, or not Terry was indeed PVS. YES. Amazing how attorneys bitch about Joe Murderer didn't get his 100th time in court before getting the needle, and advocates nod in empathy. Here? Greer determined a finding of fact without full testimony and refuses to budge; 18 other judges refused to change the decision (they may have been bound by law not to do so, however.....).

Accusing Republicans of hypocrisy for their lack of support in Universal HealthCare? YES, hypocritical. I doubt anyone has done extensive research to determine death rates attributed to Universal, or Private healthcare, or lack thereof. I doubt it could be done.

Accusing Republicans of violating Sanctity of Marriage? Again, YES, hypocritical. Michael Schiavo violated his sanctity long ago. Besides, the law (ideology aside, here) will also overlook sanctity when it comes to welfare of children, etc. Recently, Republicans refused to sign onto legislation dealing with spousal rape. Personally, I think they were stupid, as do many others-including you, Naum, I'm sure. But I don't see you defending them because they preserved the sanctity of marriage.

Accusing Bush of being hypocritical because of the TENS of thousands of innocents killed in Iraq. I won't even respond to this statement; not worth it.

Somehow, tying in Kissinger and Iraq to this sordid affair is simply, errrr...strange and outrageous.

I will agree this is a tough situation. I guess I'm in the camp of Hugh Hewitt and others who agree that Greer was an idiot and the courts are now idiots; this whole situation is immporal and wrong. However, congress was out of line, people who threaten others with violence are absolute idiots, and Florida has to change existing laws to allow additional testimonies, etc, etc.

Terry is dead now, bless her heart. I would suggest the media get their ugly, disgusting faces out of Florida and all the talk shows to shut-up.
Oh yes, leave Al Gore out of this too. That's all I'm going to say about that.
Thanks, Tom, er Neocon, I enjoy reading your take. And mostly in agreement, except for the part about Kissinger ;)
Since naummy is so fond of quoting Michael Schiavo here's one for you.

Consider the following excerpt from Michael Schiavo's July 2002 deposition:
Q. When you saw her, how was she lying; in other words, on her back or –

SCHIAVO: On her back.

Q. What did you do, then, after you –

SCHIAVO: After she fell?

Q. After you found her in the hallway.

SCHIAVO: I was – I was to her within two seconds. I seen she stopped breathing. I ran to the phone, called 911 within five seconds and panicked.

Q. What did you do, then – after that?

SCHIAVO: I went over to her. I – I thought maybe – I just started talking to her and hold her. I didn't know what to do.

Q. Did you do any CPR?


Q. Okay – after 911 and after you were holding her, what was – what then happened, was the next thing that happened?

SCHIAVO: I laid Terri down, I went over and called my – I remember my brother-in-law lived in the same complex; I called him.

First off, let's consider the position in which Terri's body was found. According to the police report, Terri was found face down:
Feb 25, 1990 Police Report
St Petersburg Police Department
Arrived: 06:33AM




"It was also noted in the police report that there was ‘various bottles of prescription medication were present, however only two were prescribed to Theresa’.

The police do state that Terri showed no outward sign of violence or no signs of trauma to Terri’s head or face. However, it doesn’t explain why Terri was admitted to the hospital that night with stiffness in her neck. And it doesn’t explain how Terri had a bone scan taken one-year later showing, as the doctor wrote in his report, that Terri appears to have a, ‘history of trauma.’

The police report also states that there were no signs of a struggle and nothing to indicate that a crime was committed. Terri was found in the hallway, outside the bathroom. There was no furniture in this area, and if some type of struggle did in fact take place between Michael Schiavo and Terri in this hallway area, it is entirely possible that there would have been no indication of a struggle.

Finally, according to Michael, he told the police that he and Terri have not had any recent fights, which is completely contrary to Terri’s brother and the testimony of Terri’s close friend Jackie Rhodes that said Terri and Michael had been fighting all day.

Consider, for instance, the testimony of Dr. William Hammesfahr regarding Terri's neck injury from October 11, 2002 which can be read at:

Here's some important excerpts:

A. Anoxic and hypoxic encephalopathies are characterized by multiple small strokes. So depending upon where that stroke is, is where your deficiency is. In your average stroke, the entire side of the body is affected. But in a hypoxic or anoxic episodes, or cerebral palsy, you will see lots of different areas affected. And there may be another injury, a neck injury with her also, which compounds her examination.

Q. Compounds what, her condition?

A. Her condition, yes. There is a neck injury. There may be a spinal cord injury, also.

Q. How were you able to determine a neck injury?

A. By physical examination. On physical examination, she has several characteristics that are not typical of a stroke. First, she has very severe neck spasms. That's typical of the body's response, splinting the area to prevent injury to that area.

Q. Splinting the area?

A. Yeah. If you injure your arm, you will move it. Your muscles will contract around it to keep that area moving. Her muscles around the neck area are heavily contracted to help prevent movement around that area. Later on in the videotape, we actually show that it's almost impossible for her to bend her neck. You can pick her entire body up off the bed just by putting pressure on the back of the neck area, which is not typical in brain injury patients but in neck injury
patients. In addition, her sensory examination is nothing like a typical stroke patient or typical anoxic encephalopathy.

Q. Are you experienced in treatment of patients with spinal cord injury?

A. Yes, I am.

Q. You said that you had never felt a neck like that except for one other patient, right?

A. Correct.

Q. What was the cause of injury in the other patient?

A. The person had an anoxic encephalous due to attempted strangulation.

Interestingly, the reason popularly given for Terri's collapse, that she suffered a heart attack as a consequence of bulimia, is not supported by her 2002 discharge records from Northside Hospital which is summarized at -

Note this excerpt:

"A heart attack – or technically, a "myocardial infarction" or "MI" – is eliminated because her enzymes are not elevated.

The specific excerpt from the actual discharge report was as follows:
Serial CPK and other enzymes did not reveal evidence of myocardial infarction. Compliment studies were within normal range.

The actual report can be viewed at -

What does this mean? Quite simply, Terri didn't suffer a heart attack. Something else caused her collapse.



Recently, another presumed "brain-dead" woman made news in Kansas. In a coma after becoming the victim of a drunk driver, Sarah Scantlin snapped out of a twenty year silence and began to speak. Memories are now coming back to her. By legal definition, Miss Scantlin's life is valid. Yesterday, it was not. Was she ever in a persistent vegetative state, or PVS? She'd respond to questions by blinking once for no, twice for yes, but since she couldn't speak no one was ever sure she understood the questions.

That's the problem. No one is ever sure. The only ones who claim to know what's best for the profoundly disabled are those who seek to benefit the most by having them legally murdered.

November 13, 2002
"In February of 1990 at the age of 26, Terri collapsed at home and oxygen was cut off to her brain for several minutes. The cause of the collapse was determined to be a cardiac arrest induced by a potassium imbalance, although testimony given in this latest trial suggests Terri also suffered a neck injury."
You do realize that neither the peers (i.e., fellow neurologists) or the court found Dr. William Hammesfahr to be credible, and that he has been sanctioned by the state of Florida for making fraudulent claims in the past.
Sure, I read all those leftist blogs about the Doctor (one with a big ole picture of Lenin on the side, why do many liberal webblogs have commie links to them?), same ole LIBERAL tactict, dont like the message attack the messenger, every time it never fails, you cant dispute the claims, you cant deny the facts, so you smear the person who makes the claims, just like you've done 90% of the FACTS anyone posts against your liberally biased asserions. Never mind the truth, lets avoid the issues and take potshots at people. You people never change.

"Lawyer Greico Intervenes
Attorney for Schiavo meets with Terri's parents soon after her collapse."


"Dr. Walker, Radiologist
2003 testimony regarding his concern with bone scan image taken of Terri in 1991"


"Jackie Rhodes, Terri’s co-worker and close friend"


"Cindy Shook, former girlfriend of Michael Schiavo
2001 testimony regarding Michael’s disturbing behavior. Ms. Shook was Michael’s first girlfriend after Terri’s collapse "


"Cindy Shook, former girlfriend of Michael Schiavo
2001 phone conversation between Cindy Shook and Bobby Schindler discussing her paralyzing fear she has of Michael Schiavo"


"Dr. Hamilton, Orthopedic Surgeon
1990, Dr. Hamilton consults Terri two months after collapse. Discovered in 2002"


"Dr. Bambakidis, Neurologist
2002 testimony that Terri’s neck is abnormal

"Dr. Hammesfahr, Neurologist
2002 testimony that Terri’s neck is abnormally stiff"


"Dr. Michael Baden, Forensic Pathologist
2003 FOX NEWS interview troubled by Terri’s bone scan image from 1991


"Dr. Carole Lieberman M.D., M.P.H.
2004, Psychiatric Expert Witness profiles Michael Schiavo"

"Michael Schiavo's Contradictions
1990-2003, testimony contradicting events from the night Terri collapsed"


"Dr. Bambakidis, Neurologist
2002 testimony regarding question if Terri had a heart attack"


"Carla Iyer, R.N.
2003 affidavit regarding Michael’s abusive behavior while Terri was in a nursing home"


"Heidi Law, Certified Nursing Assistant
2003 affidavit regarding Michael’s abusive behavior while Terri was in a nursing home"


"Trudy Capone, R.N.
2001 affidavit regarding relationship with Michael Schiavo"


"Michael Schiavo
1993, funeral file on Terri. Discovered in 2003
2002, petition to have Terri’s body cremated"


"Cindy Shook, former girlfriend of Michael Schiavo 2001 radio interview, transcript"

would you consider Dr. Baden suspect?

"Baden: Some kind of trauma. The trauma can be from an auto accident, the trauma can be from a fall, or the trauma can be from some kind of beating that she obtained from somebody somewhere. It’s something that should have been investigated in 1991 when these findings were found, and…."
Hey all
pulled me back into your lives with a suprising serious soul searching message over on politicalbridges.
My dad once said that the only thing constant in life is change. Amen to that.

In regards to the article:

I find all four of you, including Naum, all over the place on the issue. If you argued this case in my law school, everyone of you would get big F's.

You all know my fallacies of logic arguments...so I will not roll them out here, but you would all be wise to read up on them again:


What all four of you need is a moderator, too keep you all strickly on topic, all four of you are all over the place on issues. I saw so many Red Herring arguments I could start an aviary (bird zoo).

Funny, Funny, Funny.

Honestly folks, does Iraq have anything to do with Terri? Mentioning Iraq ignores Terri, and is one fat "red herring"--focus people, focus...

...Any four of you would be laughed out of court if you tried the same silly tactics in a court of law, you also would be laughed out of any serious science journal or scientific circle.

Hope you are all doing well. Unfortunatly, we also all know the saying:

"The more things change, the more things stay the same..."
As a person who is only passingly familiar with the details of the Schiavo case, I found Charley Reese's latest piece informative. Find it at

Reese points out two important factors in the case:

1) The claim that Terri had verbally expressed a "wish not to be kept alive" was NOT merely "hearsay," contrary to those who wanted Terri kept alive. I had been under a similar impression, namely that Michael Schiavo was the ONLY person to whom Terri had allegedly expressed such a wish. According to Reese, Terri had expressed this wish to THREE people (one being her husband, I presume), ALL of whom testified thus in court.

As one who believes that civil law and juriisprudence should return to their biblical foundations, this is very significant, for the Bible requires that facts be established by the testimony of "two or three witnesses," especially in capitol crimes. Since God's law requires multiple witnesses in cases where a person's life hangs in the balance, I find significant the fact that three people testified that Terri didn't want to be "kept alive."
2) Michael Schiavo and his in-laws were very close, and both parties strove to do all they could for Terri's care and rehabilitation, UNTIL a million-dollar malpractice judgment was awarded. $700k of that was put into a trust fund for Terri's medical expenses, and the remaining $300k was awarded to Michael for "loss of consortium" (the loss of the physical and emotional benefits of marriage, due to Terri's severe condition). It was only after Michael refused the Schindlers' request to split the $300k with them that their relationship went south.

I find this significant, again, for biblical reasons pertaining to what I will broadly refer to as "family law." Biblically speaking, a family is formed when the covenant of marriage is entered into (by the taking of vows, etc.) Covenantally speaking, minor children are members of their parents' household. When a boy reached adulthood and struck out on his own, he essentially severed himself from the covenantal headship of his parents -- not in an adversarial way, but in a way in which he would begin to form and take legal responsibility for his own household. Gilrs, on the other hand, would generally remain under the covenant headship and protection of their fathers until such time as they were given in marriage. Thus, when a young man found a woman whom he desired to take as a wife, he would aproach her father and essentially ask for her hand in marriage. (There were also attendant requirements of an exchange of gifts -- the bride price, the dowry, etc. which I won't go into here.)

The point is, men are biblically responsible to feed, care for, protect and nurture their families, their households. They can't nor shouldn't do this on their own -- their wives are to be "helpmeets" to them in this regard. But it is the man who is held responsible for the care and state of his family in the eyes of God.

Thus, when a young woman gets married, she is leaving the covenant care and protection of her father, for the covenant care and protection of her husband. There is a "covenant transfer," if you will.

And so, in the Schiavo-Schindler case, it is not Terri's parents who have "lost" her (in a legal sense -- of course they have lost her in an emotional or psychic sense). It is her HUSBAND who has "lost" her. Thus, I don't think Michael had any obligation to share the "loss of consortium" judgement with his in-laws. Now wisdom may -- MAY -- dictate that, to keep peace with the Schindlers, he might have considered doing so. But I also think it was just plain wrong for the Schindlers to even have ASKED Michael to slpit the judgement with them. How positively MERCENARY.

(...please forgive my long-windedness, Naum!)

3) In light of the above, I've modified SLIGHTLY my thinking toward Michael's spousal obligations to Terri. Since I had originally thought that Schiavo was the ONLY person claiming that Terri said she wouldn't want to be "kept alive," and since Schiavo has been living in adultery and fathering a child(ren?) in the last several years, that his word is suspect (if he couldn't be trusted to keep is marriage vow, how could his testmony re. Terri's wishes be trusted) -- and that he had an obvious conflict of interests. The corroborating testimony from the two others witnesses ameliorates this fact.

But there's still a problem: If he really wanted to faithfully uphold her wish not to be kept alive, he must have viewed her as still legally alive, and thus he should also have continued to remain faithful to her to the very end. However, if he wanted to pursue and enjoy the benefits of a new sexual and familial relationship (by virtue of the fact that, for all practical purposes, his wife was "dead"), he ought to have divorced her (today’s “no-fault” divorce laws whould certainly allow for it) and then allowed her parents to once again assume the full responsibility for her care that they had before they gave her to Michael in marriage.

That is to say, Michael shouldn't be able to have it both ways – allegedly watching out for the interests and wishes of his wife AND shacking up and making babies with another woman. He ought to remained faithful to her until she died and then pursued a different woman, OR he should have divorced her and allowed the Schindlers to give her the care they wished to give her. 

4) And lastly (well, almost!), I’m still of the opinion that administering food and water to someone who cannot feed themself does not constitute “exceptional" or "heroic medical measures” -- AMA opinions to the contrary. It’s one thing to be kept alive by a machine that performs vital life activities for the body -- a heart-lung machine, e.g. It's another thing altogether to provide basic nourishment and sustenance to a living human being.

So Terri couldn’t "feed herself"? Neither can a newborn -- nor even a sentient adult in a body cast. Are they now to be viewed as somehow less deserving of life, even if only very slightly less deserving? Now, I still think that a person should be allowed to use a "living will" to refuse (in advance) "artificial" feeding and hydration. But we must avoid the slippery slope that basic food and water somehow constitute unusual/extreme/heroic means of maintining someone’s life.

5) Okay, LASTLY (for good, this time!): Travbaily asked: "Honestly folks, does Iraq have anything to do with Terri?" No, not specifically. I only raised the issue of Iraq in light of this administration's profession of being "pro-life." Congress's scurrying about on Capitol Hill, and the president's flying to DC from the Crawford ranch on a Saturday to sign their bill, because they are "pro-life" all come accross as quite disingenuous when these very same men have no compunctions whatsoever regarding the innocent lives they are taking almost daily in their unlawful invasion and occupation of Iraq. Most of these guys are only pro-life when they can make political hay out of it. (Maybe sometime I'll write about Pres. Bush's bogus "pro-life" action of authorizing federal funding for stem-cell research "only on already existing lines of cells." FEH!)

Travbaily also said: "Any four of you would be laughed out of court if you tried the same silly tactics in a court of law..."

Well, we are obviously not arguing this case in a "court of law." With all due respect to you being a member f the legal profession, we are engaging in a discussion of this issue in a quasi-public forum. I'm sorry, but you sound like those folks who object to the "water-cooler" discussions of current court cases "because here in America, you're presumed innocent until proven guilty." The presumption of innocence until guilt has been proven only applies in a court of law -- not around the water cooler, or on azplace.net!
For Travbaily's (and others') consideration:

"... I have one question for Congress and for George ('When in doubt it is always better to err on the side of life' – Arizona, March 22, 2005) Bush, though: Why does Terry Schiavo deserve to live more than my son, Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan? Casey was misused and abused by his Commander-in-Chief and executive branch that boldly lied to the American public and the less gullible citizens of other countries about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq.

"Casey was sent to Iraq to be killed by the same pack of cowards and murderers who so 'valiantly' and tirelessly fought for the right for Ms. Schiavo to live! The green light for Casey’s murder was given by a Congress who expediently abrogated their constitutional rights to a president whose foreign policies are not based on reality or even loosely based on any kind of Christian moral values. Someone needs to give Congress basic lessons on the Constitution: Declaring War – YES; Meddling in a family's private tragedy – NO!!" ~ Cindy Sheehan, the mother of Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan, KIA 04/04/04, at

President Bush should be impeached for the fraudulent act of invading a sovereign nation that did not threaten the United States and did not possess WMD as the administration has admitted since.

Of course, it's not going to happen. Those with bloodlust rule the day, and there's enough of the public, either imbued with the same bloodlust or hopelessly hoodwinked by the corporate controlled mainstream media that beat the drums for war and for more corporate profits.

All at the expense of the lives of our youth, the deaths of innocent Iraqis and financial burden of future generations.
"What makes Michael Schiavo’s story even more fishy is that the sanctity of his alleged promise to Terri hasn’t stopped him from violating an even more basic promise: He has indeed 'moved on' and taken another woman, whom he calls his 'fiancée,' and by whom he already has two children. Many men commit adultery, but few announce their engagements to other women while still married to living wives. This 'fiancée' should take a close look at the man she intends to marry." ~ Joseph Sobran, March 24, 2005 at

Add Comment

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it