Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Ask a proponent of plug-pulling why he believes what he does about Terri Schiavo and the response will likely be that she presently has zero dignity of life, that without consciousness, her life is devoid of value. But isn’t that a supreme irony? This woman’s fate has caused, by this point, countless millions of words to be spoken and written about some of life’s most important issues—the meaning and value of life and of death; the parameters of man’s obligations to fellow man; the definitions of dignity, suffering, soul, consciousness, marital and familial bonds; the roles of religion, law and medicine in society, and on and on.
Though we mortals are unable to judge such things, it may just be that this woman’s life has been the vehicle for enriching the world with more meaning, more wisdom, more moral seriousness in the past few weeks than many other individuals are responsible for in their combined entire lifetimes.
And while the vast majority of people in Ms. Schiavo’s predicament do not generate anywhere near the level of soul-searching and moral debate that she has engendered, does not every such situation hold within it a vast reservoir of potential meaning waiting to be actualized? The opportunity for family and friends to express altruistic love and provide care with no quid pro quo ; the lessons that sickness and looming death teach about making the most of our fleeting time on earth and the commitment to moral betterment this inspires; the opportunity for loved ones to repay moral debts and right past wrongs—- these and many more sources of meaning make every human life inherently significant, whatever its supposed “quality.”
The only difference between Ms. Schiavo and those individuals is that she is seemingly unaware of the role she is playing in focusing a large part of humanity on life’s ultimate concerns, while other, sentient beings are aware of their roles and actions. And therein lies the rub. Terri Schiavo’s life can only be termed valueless if individual value is dependant on one’s subjective awareness thereof, if “I” am the final arbiter of all things meaningful, not the world as a whole or, dare we say, a Supreme Being. But what a pitifully small-minded and egoistic way of determining value and meaning that is.
As our readers know, the critique offered by Pipes today echoes the one that I published in The American Spectator on March 9. Pipes and I share in common with most of our readers not only a great love for Israel and concern for its security but also an abiding respect for the late Menachem Begin. Begin founded the wing of Israeli governance (after its seeds had been sown in pre-statehood days by Vladimir Jabotinsky) that Sharon now heads. But Menachem Begin once said: "I cannot count the wounds in my back placed there by Sharon." The back-stabbing continues, albeit posthumously for Begin.
Neither Pipes nor I are Kahanists or some other form of radical. We would agree to return territory for peace, but only AT THE END of a multi-year process that includes significant and consistent moves by the Palestinians, starting from the abandonment of terrorism and continuing through the purging of vitriolic anti-Semitism from textbooks. (When they keep hanging maps of the Middle East that do not include Israel, we skeptical types are hard-pressed to buy into the contention that "uber alles" has given way to uberrima fides.)
Monday, April 04, 2005
Is the disenfranchisement of minority voters not the only irregularity you struggle with?
Does America's diet of pork-barrel politics and rich, cheesy candidates have you in a bind?
Tired of your personal healthcare concern constantly being a #2 priority?
Are you anxious to start a movement but know you'll need some help?
MoveOn Laxative: Stop waiting for a movement - make it happen!
Made from safe, gentle, organic ingredients, including all-natural fiber from real grassroots
Easy to swallow - not gritty or uncomfortable like more "radical" remedies
Clinically proven effectiveness without animal testing - we use all human volunteers
Look for our full page ad in this Sunday's New York Times
In my view, the greatest source of this pope's success—beyond his hard work, passion, and wisdom—was his willingness to question all things while remaining true to the essentials of his faith and his church. That is a perspective the Catholic Church and its next leader must retain if progress is to continue.
The church must continue to ask serious questions about its internal organization and its engagement with the world. The answers will greatly displease many people. Nonetheless, fulfilling its mission, the Great Commission, must be the central consideration in all church matters. Where traditions or current doctrines and practices stand in the way, they must be abolished. Where these things serve the misson of the church, they should be strengthened.
Ultimately, the aim of the Catholic Church is to be catholic, to be universal among all Christians, which it is at present very far from becoming. However, as Hunter Baker has pointed out on this site and in writings published elsewhere, the major orthodox Christian groups are closer to one another than at any time in centuries. (I should also add that the Christian church may now be in closer harmony with believing Jews than it has ever been.) Appropriate internal reforms combined with principled ecumenicism should be the goal of all Christian churches, and it is right that the world's largest Christian church body should lead the way.
In this endeavor, all Christians should wish for God's great blessings on the Catholic Church.
I grew up in the same town and recall when John Paul II replaced his short-lived predecessor. From that time forward, I paid attention to his career. He was dedicated to freedom, a man who had lived through the oppression of the Nazis and the Soviets. Now, he was the most powerful religious figure on earth. He did not shrink from the challenge. His Poland would eventually prove pivotal in loosening the Soviet's iron grip on Eastern Europe.
In addition to freedom, Pope John Paul labored against the easy and deadly conveniences of the age. His greatness brought evangelicals and Catholics into a single camp in opposition to the culture of death and materialism. The alliance was made easier by his insistence that Protestants were separated brethren and his desire that the church should again be one. We may yet see his wish fulfilled within decades rather than centuries. The two sides are closer now than at any time since the Counter-Reformation.
Though I am an evangelical Christian, I do not hesitate to recognize this Pope as God's minister to the world and as the greatest public Christian of the age (with apologies to Billy Graham).
Friday, April 01, 2005
As usual, I offer a smidgen:
Maybe Ailes' greatest asset is his self-confidence. Like most visionaries, he doesn't seem to give a hoot what skeptics think. That's partly because he doesn't have much patience for critics, especially within his ranks. When a group of people are all working on the same page, it's easy to build loyalty. Once people function as a team, they feel unbeatable and, in turn, it's very hard to beat them.
From what I could see, there isn't a self-deprecating bone in the man's body. If Ailes sounded utterly unapologetic about Fox's unique brand of success -- pandering to the right wing -- it was because, quite clearly, he feels that he has nothing to apologize for.
That Ailes is cleaning CNN's clock -- remember, it was known as the Clinton News Network -- is being viewed as a blow to liberals and left-wing causes everywhere. And make no mistake about it. Nobody is enjoying their discomfort more than Ailes himself.
I had promised to announce here when I returned to Wall Street. As we have discussed here in the past, I move my retirement fund in and out of Diamonds (symbol: DIA) which track the Dow Jones Industrial Average, and I have been sitting on the sidelines with a cash position since December when I sold out at $107.97 a share at the 10,800 level of the index. I have averaged over 18 percent a year return over the last two years (the Diamonds also pay a dividend).
This morning I bought back in at $104.18. My broker ecstatically ran to call his entire client list, who follow me like some kind of guru.
The loss is incalculable.
1) A person who is the object of love and compassion increases the presence of those elements in the world.
2) That person also offers an opportunity for many individuals, whether family members or caregivers, to express real acts of giving and kindness.
3) A person who suffers, in addition to purifying their own soul, brings forgiveness to humanity (according to both Judaism and Christianity). [Although in neither religion is this a reason to force a person to extend life; it is a spiritual consideration that is not factored into the practical medical decision.]
4) In Jewish theology, the world is measured every day and God's treatment of it is based on a mathematical/metaphysical calculus that is determined by the NUMBER of good people and the NUMBER of bad people at any given time. One good person can bring much blessing to the world merely by BEING.
It reminded me of a more dignified occasion when I went to see Pat promote his autobiography in 1987 (or was it '88) in Pensacola, Florida. Pat had returned to Crossfire after a gig as Reagan's Director of Communications. If you haven't read the autobio, Right from the Beginning, I urge you to obtain a copy. The Pat Buchanan you'll meet there is far from the semi-caricature of Pat the politician. Besides being the very interesting story of a young pugilist good with his hands and his pen, the book is a great tale of growing up Catholic in the 50's.
Larry does ask the right question:
"If individual rights and personal choice are the liberals' bottom line, why must the personal preference of Michael, who has (understandably) moved on with his life, be seen as inviolable, but the personal preference of Terri's parents, who have not moved on with their lives but want to care for their daughter, must be equated with theocratic tyranny and resisted at all costs?"
It is not my intention here to restart the fight over the merits of that argument, only to point out that it is an important question for the Right to ask, if only to test its own position by considering its own positions on individual rights and personal choice.
Of course, the Left will argue (and has done so) that their response to the situation has been based purely on reason. I agree that it has been a reasoned position. The Right, however, would say the same about its arguments, again correctly in my view. As I have pointed out earlier on this site, the two sides had and still have a serious dispute over the facts of the case. They disagree on the basic question of whether Terri Schiavo had sufficient brain function that her condition did not meet the criteria that Michael Schiavo claims she set for preferring death over continued existence.
I believe this disagreement came about on the basis of the two sides' differing perceptions of the intellectual issues it brings up. It seems evident that each side leaped intuitively to a conclusion about what would be best in the situation, then chose arguments to support that premise. There is nothing wrong with that. However, pretending that one's own side is reasonable and the other is driven by dark superstitions, as many on the Left have done in the present case, does not evidence a use of pure reason. Likewise, claiming that one's opponents adore death, as many on the Right have done, is unlikely to win adherents for the pristine logic of one's position.
This issue won't go away, I surmise, because the hatred and suspicion of both sides remains. Indeed, the arguments over this issue have strengthened those hatreds. In that regard, Lawrence Auster is quite correct.
Here's a taste of Pat's blogging:
Ask Mr. Politics II
Mr. Politics is back to answer your questions. And, as usual, he’s feeling a bit testy.
Now that a brutal dictatorship has been overthrown in Iraq, and free elections have been held there and in Afghanistan, and Libya has renounced its nuclear program, and Israel and the Palestinians have declared a cease-fire, and leaders of Saudi Arabia and others have been put on notice about democratizing their nations, what more has to happen in order for President Bush to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?
J.V. Philadelphia, PA
THE COMMAND OF THE UNITED STATES MILITARY WOULD HAVE TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE UNITED NATIONS, KOFI ANNAN’S LIKENESS WOULD HAVE TO BE ENGRAVED ON MT. RUSHMORE, THE U.S. WOULD HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO FRANCE AND GERMANY FOR MAKING A MESS OF THE MIDDLE EAST, AND, EVEN THEN, THE PRIZE WOULD MORE LIKELY BE AWARDED POSTHUMOUSLY TO YASSER ARAFAT.
(HT to Southern Appeal)
The "fessay" is my recent literary invention, in which the column responding to a story is rendered in the form of fiction, i.e. a "fictional essay".
#4 responds to the news of Terri Schiavo being starved to death by judicial fiat, which event was lustily cheered by great big swaths of our society, most particularly the "Beautiful People".
A tangential bit of good news: The first fessay was posted on March 21, and by March 23 was featured by the Patentist web site (a resource for inventors and patent attorneys) as an important new invention.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
And once we are in that territory, may I point out two very valuable insights from Jewish law that could well have been applied in this case by Judge Greer but were sadly not considered.
1) A karov, i.e. a blood relative, even as far distant as a second cousin, may never testify in a case that affects their relative, whether or not that testimony seems to be beneficial to the relative.
2) A nogayah, i.e. a person with a financial interest in the outcome, may never testify in a way that is beneficial to his or her own interest.
These are two rules of Jewish courtroom procedure. Between them, they would have eliminated all of the testimony presented to the Court concerning Terri's statements of intent.
The turn toward the federal courts must hinge upon an argument to the effect that a federal law or right has been violated. And here I have a real problem with those invoking the Americans With Disabilities Act, and other such monstrosities. Do we want to have the courts use unconstitutional laws so as to achieve outcomes that we prefer? I think not. As I understand it, the emergency legislation passed by Congress in a midnight session directed a federal court to undertake a de novo review of the case not in its entirety, but in the context of Mrs. Schiavo's federal rights. (Please correct me if I am wrong.) It seems to me that the federal judge acted far too hastily---the feeding tube should have been reinserted while a serious review proceeded---and that is another source of anguish: Too many of the judges are morons and worse.
Jewish tradition is clear on the distinction between preserving life and delaying death. At a moral level, Mrs. Schiavo is not dying, she is not on life support, she has not received the therapy that she needs and that was promised by her husband during the course of the malpractice lawsuit. Until further medical tests are done, we do not know the precise nature of her condition---even with such tests, there still might prevail continuing disagreement among the physicians---and we certainly do not know her wishes. What we do know is that our civilization depends upon not only the pursuit of outcomes preserving our relationship with the Almighty, but also those preserving our relationship with ourselves. For the same reason that the possibility that some innocents might be executed in a system of capital punishment does not present a powerful argument against it, we simply cannot allow the anguish of such difficult cases to engender rationales for eroding our legal system, regardless of the degree to which the leftists, the death-with-dignity crowd, and the abortion lobby do so as a matter of course. The hypocrisy of the Left in the Schiavo matter is breathtaking; remember Elian Gonzalez? We cannot descend into that pit with them.
I wish we knew Mrs. Schiavo's wishes. I wish that we knew her condition. I wish that we could have greater confidence in her husband's assertions. I wish that Judge Greer had given more thought to his factual findings. I pray that others not find themselves in her situation. But I also wish that our legal system were not so thoroughly corrupted and policitized.
Off to a conference the rest of the week.
Those who read this weblog know that we are divided on the question of what should be happening in Terri's case. Ben Zycher remains undeclared, but the rest of us have offered several opinions and bits of analysis.
Leaving aside the slippery slope, the bottom line is that I am not convinced there is no "Terri" inside the body now being dehydrated/starved. I am not in favor of preserving life no matter what. Part of the reason I am so uncertain is because of Terri's parents and other relatives. They strongly believe she is responsive, no matter how minimally. If that is the case, I don't know how we dare choose death for her.
What about her husband's statement that she didn't want to live this way? It is highly unlikely such a discussion reached an adequate level of detail to reach dehydration/starvation, particularly among ordinary people. I imagine they watched some 20/20 feature story or a movie of the week about a person on life support and Terri said (if she indeed said anything), "I wouldn't want to go on that way." We could safely say that means no ventilator, but no food/water is a bit of a stretch from an off-handed statement by a 20-something in casual conversation.
Alan takes issue with my mention of the Netherlands as a land that has lost its way thanks to its embrace of euthanasia. I think its safe to say they have. Abraham Kuyper's once proud land has given up on a high view of the person's dignity on just about every front, whether that be drugs, sex, reproduction, pre-born life, superannuated life, etc.. As far as Virginia goes, www.euthanasia.com says they have no law permitting assisted suicide. Oregon does, but I'm not sure that's a sign that their moral sensibilities are improving. For more about Switzerland and the Netherlands, follow this link to a worthwhile NRO article by Wesley J. Smith.
Tempers have run high as the nation has discussed the issue, and the authors of this blog have disagreed (politely, as always) about the meaning of the case. A measure of this passion is the fact that many individuals have repeatedly and disgracefully mischaracterized the positions and statements of those on the other side.
As in the overall national debate, however, it appears to me that the disagreement in the Reform Club has arisen largely over the facts in the case rather than the principles of the situation. One side truly believes that Terri would not have wanted to live this way, that she expressed this clearly to her husband and two other people, and that her husband is simply insisting that her wishes be granted. The other side does not believe that Terri expressed a clear directive that covers the present case. The arguments stem from disagreement over those simple facts.
As a result, I have argued that we need this debate because clarity in the law is essential, and clarity in one’s personal directives likewise necessary.
However, it also appears to me that our varying willingness to believe Michael Schiavo’s claims is perhaps traceable to differences over certain principles we apply to life in general. The issue has brought out furious debates over what life is for, and how we value human lives. Put simply, some are absolutists in the matter, and some are not. Most are unsure, and rely on intuitive responses.
Personally, I am among the latter, the uncertain ones. That is why I have argued for clarity in the law and in individuals’ personal directives regarding these matters.
In the present case, I do not see such clarity. I think both sides have a reasonable case to make. Upon my judgment of the facts, I would greatly prefer to see Terri’s care handed over to her parents, for I strongly doubt that the present case covers what she may have meant when speaking to her husband about some TV movies many years ago.
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Geriatric specialists June Lunney and Joanne Lynn, writing in The Washington Post, March 27, noted that Terri Schiavo’s plight is “not unique” but “a common situation.” We don’t know precisely how common, because the cause of death is recorded according to the underlying disease rather than by the refusal to use life support technologies.
I have had living wills in five states which always left the decisions to my spouse rather than my parents (I would have never upset my parents by confiding my views about their own end of life, much less mine).
My latest Advanced Medical Directive empowers my wife to refuse on my behalf “the use of mechanical or other procedures that affect any bodily function, including, but not limited to, artificial respiration, artificially administered nutrition and hydration, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. This authorization specifically includes the power to consent to the administration of dosages of pain relieving medication in excess of standard dosages . . . even if such medication . . . inadvertently hastens my death.” The last provision is perfectly legal in Virginia.
Hunter Baker singled out euthanasia law in the Netherlands as symptomatic of collective sin, but he did observe such a slippery slope among the citizens of Virginia, Oregon or Switzerland (where assisted death has been legal since 1937).
I am not arguing that the laws of 44 states against lethal injection are right or wrong. I leave that to the states. I am merely making the factual point that such laws leave many dying persons with no choice but to die slowly though not necessarily painfully (anesthetics are generally effective against pain, as shown during surgery).
My previous entry was about living wills, not euthanasia. I speculated that the reason so many people have been motivated by the Schiavo case to fill out living wills is not because they wish to insist on being kept alive by any means possible under any conceivable circumstance. Nobody has yet questioned that premise, so what does it imply about “what the patient would have wanted for herself” in Terry Schiavo’s case? If Mrs. Schiavo had filled out a living will, what are the odds that her medical directives would have been the exact opposite of most other living wills?
Many people gratuitously accuse her husband (and the Florida courts) of lying about what Terri Schiavo would have wanted, even though many of these same people are openly horrified by the prospect of spending countless decades bedridden, immobile and unable to communicate. In the March 23 The Washington Times Charles Krauthammer wrote that “If I were in Terry Schiavo’s condition I would not want a feeding tube.” On March 26, Tom Sowell wrote in the same paper that he would not “want to be kept alive in Terri’s condition.” He added that he would also not “want to be killed so slowly and painfully.” Yet in all but six U.S. states, however, only the first choice could be part of his living will. In most states anyone who does not want a permanent feeding tube, such as Mr. Sowell and Mr. Krauthammer, has no choice left but to die slowly from dehydration. Those who support laws against physician-assisted death cannot have it both ways – first arguing for criminalizing a “humane way to end life” yet subsequently feigning indignation whenever life does not end humanely.
Also in The Washington Times March 27, William Goldcamp speaks of Mrs. Schiavo’s “ignominious death, one worse than would be permitted a death-row prisoner or a dog.” Yet such ignominy is entirely because most state laws prohibit physicians from making death entirely painless, except for death-row prisoners or dogs. That is, most states hold physicians criminally and civilly liable for the administration of dosages of pain relieving medication in excess of standard dosages even if such medication inadvertently hastens death.
Feeding tubes are not inserted by divine intervention. “Letting nature take its course” does not mean letting physicians do whatever they want. Anyone’s “appointed time” depends on human decisions to resuscitate, to use mechanical methods of assisting breathing or circulation, and/or to rely on a feeding tube.
A “slippery slope” toward widespread euthanasia could be an unintended consequence of one faction’s gross exaggeration of the notion that the absence of a feeding tube toward the end of life is either unusual or terribly cruel. Even for people who are not brain-damaged (Alzheimer’s being a much milder form of brain damage than Mrs. Schiavo's), the inability to eat or drink is not typically agonizing (the body and consciousness just shut down) and medication would be available if it were. If many people actually come to believe the recent hyperbole about the alleged horrors of ending life without a feeding tube, then they are far more likely to demand their living wills permit potentially fatal dosages of pain relieving medication. If their state does not allow that, they may well be prompted to agitate for more permissive laws. Indeed, they may reasonably conclude from Congressional meddling in the Schiavo case that voters have now been encouraged to do such agitating at the federal level.
Although I get there by a very different route, I end up agreeing completely with Sam Karnick’s conclusion: “A broad federal law—or worse yet, an overarching Supreme Court decision based on emanations from the penumbra of the Constitution—would surely be a classic illustration of the adage that hard cases make bad law.”
He spoke of having acted in a ministerial capacity many times near the end of people's lives. He talked about Demerol and removing life support and fairly rapid expirations. Then, the shocker:
"Terri Schiavo has been without food and water for twelve days. They are starving her to death."
The Jesse Jackson who backed off his pro-life views to seek the Democratic Party's nomination so many years ago has decided he is willing to draw a line.
I don’t normally pay much attention to “the Krug,” but my friend and colleague Al Beck sent me an email on the latest column in the NYT and gave me permission to post his thoughts here. Mr. Beck is charitable and holds out the hand of friendship even while he expresses his supreme dissatisfaction with the former economist:
If the intent of this piece ("What's Going On?") was to sharpen the divide between religious conservatives (okay, let's be honest--Christian conservatives) and more moderate secularists, then Mr. Krugman has succeeded. By painting all religious conservatives with a broad brush, lumping Israeli terrorists, Muslim fanatics, praying evangelicals, and rosary-twirling grandmothers into the same camp, Krugman goes so far that he is, it seems, guilty of what he so often condemns. He has effectively objectified "the other," in this case conservative Christians, just as Hitler objectified the Jews as "the other" and thus was able to ignore their plight and seek their destruction. Randall Terry may be a pompous windbag, but Krugman's guilt-by-association turns him into something much more frightening, and, it seems, much less real.
Now, the above comparison may not seem fair--Krugman and Hitler as fellow travelers along the road to some sort of modern holocaust. I'm sure that Krugman would be horrified at such a mischaracterization of his beliefs and attitudes, but that's the point. Terry Schiavo's parents, those Christian believers praying in front of Schiavo's nursing home, and the pharmacist or doctor who really believes that she cannot assist in the taking of a human life have about as much in common with Dutch Muslim fanatics and Israeli assassins as Krugman has with Hitler--i.e., nothing at all except a shared humanity that is often prone to evil (as are we all), yet ever hopeful for better things. But, as the head of the Christian Coalition once declared (and I'm speaking of Jesus and not Pat Robertson, of course)--"You hypocrite, first cast out the beam from your own eye; and then shall you see clearly so as to to cast out the mote out of your brother's eye." Let us not be too quick to do to others what we accuse them of doing to us. In seeking a humane and just society, Krugman would do much better to get to know the conservative believers who walk among us, who live next door to us, and share our fundamental values of peace, justice, and the dignity of human life.
Rather predictably, the Times article claims that firms are being driven solely by self-interest, "now that boards and chief executives have seen how public scandals can torpedo stock prices, alienate customers and end careers." Several business analysts are quoted as objecting to what they call a New Puritanism among corporations, which they say is driven by panic and fear.
What is particularly interesting is that neither the author nor anyone quoted in the article suggested that the more rigorous standards for business ethics could have any ties whatever to broader social and cultural trends in the country.
However, it seems absurdly unlikely that there is no connection between the two. I have written in the past about the changes in moral and social standards that occurred in the United States in the half-century after World War II, and I believe that business ethics began to become more relaxed just as other standards did during that period. But whereas the general culture reached a tipping point, where the changes became undeniable, in the 1960s, in the business realm the difference did not become quite so noticeable until the 1980s—as the generation raised during the postwar era began to come to power in the business world.
Just as new, more latitudinarian cultural assumptions filtered into the business world during the half-century after WWII, it appears that the new, more restrictive social and moral standards of our time are starting to have their effect on U.S. businesses now. If the Times article is correct, and the "new puritanism" is merely a response to recent scandals, then we can expect a return to more lax standards of behavior as soon as the heat is off. If I am right and the changes in business ethics are part of a long-term cultural trend, we should expect to see the standards continue to tighten.
Today I explore this theme for the readers of The American Spectator.
Monday, March 28, 2005
The question, of course, will be whether the issues are best handled at the state or federal level. I am inclined to favor state autonomy in the matter, even though the Florida courts and legislature seem to have dropped the ball on this one, the latter in creating laws too ambiguous to handle the sorts of difficult cases they were evidently meant to deal with, and the former in refusing to consider many issues brought up in the appeal.
The worst job, however, clearly was done by the lawyers engaged by Terri Schiavo’s parents, in failing to bring up important matters during the original court proceedings, which allowed the appeals court to ignore the arguments later. (It is important to note, however, that the Florida courts did not have to ignore these arguments but chose to do so, albeit with perfectly good legal justification).
The role of government in these matters ought to be quite clear: to adjudicate conflicts between competing interests. In all such cases, clarity in the laws is essential.
My preference is that such decisions be made as close to the source as possible. (I should note here that I was not one of the writers who called for congressional action in the Schiavo case.) First, there is the choice to be made by the individual. In this case, that means a well-written living will or similar document. Failing that, the decision should be made by the person’s guardian, if any, and immediate family. The problem in the Schiavo case, of course, was that there was no agreement among the family on what Terri’s wishes would have been, nor on what was best for her.
If no consensus can be reached among the family, then of course the government must intervene. The medical community, in my view, should not be the actual decision maker, and should follow two rules: first, do no harm (which precludes any active participation in euthanasia in any form); and second, execute the wishes of the individual or family. If the family’s wishes conflict with the first rule, the person should be removed from medical care and the agreed-upon treatment should be administered.
To do otherwise would risk corrupting the medical profession severely.
Of course, given the publicity surrounding the Schiavo case, the press is on for federal legislation.
An article in today’s New York Times noted, “some Democrats, prodded by advocates for the disabled, say Congress should consider whether [a law allowing the federal courts to review disputed cases like that of Terri Schiavo] is needed."
On the ABC-TV program This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Massachusetts representative Barney Frank (D) said, "I think we should look into this and very possibly legislate it," although he had opposed the more narrowly targeted law Congress passed regarding the Schiavo case. Frank said, "I think Congress needs to do more. Because I've spoken with a lot of disability groups who are concerned that, even where a choice is made to terminate life, it might be coerced by circumstances."
The Times article noted that the two groups pressing for legislative action on the matter— Christian conservatives and advocates for the disabled—have not gotten along very well in the past, and are taking conflicting approaches: “it is unclear whether Christian conservatives and disability rights advocates can agree on what action Congress should take. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Christian conservative group, said on Sunday that his organization was working with states to urge them to pass measures that would prevent the withdrawal of nutrition from patients like Ms. Schiavo.
“Mr. Perkins said state action was ‘the preferred route,’ adding, ‘In certain circumstances there may need to be some federal action, but I would not advocate a broad brush stroke of the federal government to try to prevent this from happening again.’
The approach that Perkins suggests is the right one, in my view. A broad federal law—or worse yet, an overarching Supreme Court decision based on emanations from the penumbra of the Constitution—would surely be a classic illustration of the adage that hard cases make bad law. And this was a very hard case indeed.
Sunday, March 27, 2005
1. America watches Terri Schiavo die over a prolonged period from dehydration/starvation.
2. More attention is paid by everyone to things like living wills and other legal instruments. More commonly, husbands and wives will be explicit with each other about detailed situations.
3. Many will stop and ask, why did Terri have to die of dehydration? Why couldn't she have been well-cared for to the end and finally delivered via an overdose of morphine or some other quick, painless finisher?
4. The euthanasia movement will gain significant momentum.
5. Assisted suicide will either be legalized in a significant portion of the states or the Supreme Court will federalize the issue as they have abortion.
6. America attains the moral status of say, the Netherlands.
Whether this is a pretty picture or not depends on your own moral compass. I'm concerned about where the slope will lead us. I can easily envision euthanasia being actively urged for imperfect infants of all kinds. The Down Syndrome children who aren't already killed in utero via programs to "reduce birth defects" will now be wiped out en masse in their first 10 days of life as parents take the easy way out. We'll start hearing about post-euthanasia parents just like we hear about post-abortive women. Our moral fiber will continue to weaken as we dispose of our challenges instead of growing through them.
First of all, kudos to Ralph Nader for being on the right side of this one. His most cogent point is this: there is no law in the world that can allow a court to order that a person not be fed by hand. Even if a feeding tube is deemed to be "life support" (and, may I remind everyone that in the landmark case of Karen Ann Quinlan, after the family won the right to remove her from the respirator, she lived nine more years - i.e. it never occurred to anyone to remove her feeding tube), giving food and water by hand certainly is not. There is no power in the Constitution or elsewhere to allow a person to be denied food and water by hand.
Sadly, I don't think that it ever occurred to the attorneys to make a separate filing to a federal judge to ask for permission to feed by hand since the state judge's injunction is illegal on its face. If indeed she cannot take nourishment in this way, then she will die, but if she can, she will be saved.
Does any State have the right to execute a serial killer with a hundred dismembered victims by denying him food and water? Of course not. It would be cruel and inhuman punishment. (This point was made by attorney Jack Thompson in his memo to Governor Bush).
I have no strength to continue. This is a horror to me, and I feel betrayed by every concept and institution that I took to be a bulwark and a buttress.
Saturday, March 26, 2005
Affidavit from Heidi Law, nurse who take care of Terri
I feel differently about Terri Schiavo, though. My grandfather was actively dying. Terri Schiavo was not. She continued to live, requiring food and water, but still breathing on her own. There is a great difference between dying naturally and having life's sustenance withheld in order to bring death. What has been done to Terri Schiavo is indistinguishable in my mind from what would happen if a person taking care of a quadraplegic relative simply refused to provide food and water.
I am highly disturbed by the fact that we don't see unanimity of medical opinion about Terri's situation. Some say she's in a vegetative state, others say not, still others don't know. I fear the judicial determinations have depended more on an assessment of whether her life is worth living than on slam-dunk medical evidence.
Finally, it should mean something that Terri's family so keenly desires her continued presence. If she were truly vegetative, then it would be hard to believe they would fight as they have. They feel she is alive and interactive, no matter how minimally. This woman seems to me to be profoundly disabled more than brain-dead or vegetative.
I tried to go to sleep two nights ago after helping my week-old daughter get back to sleep. For some reason, standing by the bed in the moonlight I thought about Terri Schiavo and felt as if God would have me pray. The whole world is watching and I think He is, too.
Friday, March 25, 2005
Alan, I think the key element here is that the Terri Schiavo case does not fit the situation you describe, as I have noted in earlier postings on the matter. To wit and in particular, Terri Schiavo is not brain dead. She is not in an advanced, incurable stage of Alzheimer's disease, nor is she suffering great pain, as far as anyone can discern, nor does she suffer from any of the other conditions typically given as reasons for mercy killing. She is by no means an obvious candidate for a killing by denial of food and water—except for the unsupported statements of her husband, a man who has become entirely estranged from her and her family. He won't even allow them to visit her, lest they place an ice chip on her dehydrated lips.
Surely, Alan, your emotional ties to your mother were far stronger than the obvious emotional distance Michael Schiavo displays toward Terri!
As I mentioned earlier, the New York Times agrees that Terri Schiavo is not a conventional candidate for mercy killing, even if one accepts the premise that euthanasia can be acceptable. In Tuesday's story by Abby Goodnough, the reporter noted, "She [Terri Schiavo] can breathe on her own and has periods of wakefulness, but Judge George Greer of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court, who presided over the case, accepted the testimony of doctors who said she was in a 'persistent vegetative state' and incapable of thought or emotion."
The real issue here is not whether Terri Schiavo should die but who should decide the matter. The question of who is qualified to choose, who truly has Terri's best interests at heart, is not only a legal question but also, and much more powerfully, a moral one. That, I think, is why passions have run so high over this matter.
In my view, although perhaps not others', it could not be more obvious that Terri's parents want what is best for her, in line with their religious beliefs, of course, but without any true conflicts of interest. Michael Schiavo, on the other hand, does have an explicit interest in seeing Terri die, if only to get on with his own life unencumbered by a very disabled wife.
This moral issue is extremely important to the body politic. Recent history, especially trends in Europe, makes it quite clear that there will be many more such attempts to stretch the definition of what it is acceptable for doctors and legal guardians to do in ending the lives of patients under their care. And not all of these will be cases in which the right choice is clear, as in the nevertheless agonizing case of Alan's decision about his mother. In addition, as the huge Baby Boom generation reaches advanced age, these decisions will become even more common and increasingly vexing—and a great number of Boomers will be in Terri’s position instead of Michael’s.
Hence, the discussion of Terri's sad plight is important and necessary. Only when the public presses for and receives clear legislation on these matters will the law have a chance of fully reflecting the needs of both parties in such cases, with a true respect for the rights of the helpless to live even when they pose a burden others do not wish to accept.
The Florida courts have decided that the law is clear on this matter as it applies to the case currently in question. Be that as it may, the court of public opinion is making it increasingly evident that not all of the public sees the answer in this case as quite so obvious. This a matter that should be discussed, and one on which passions should indeed be high. If life and death are not important, nothing is.
This brings us to Alan's argument about the Christian valuation of life evidenced by those who have expressed a desire that Terri not be dehydrated and starved to death: "Many who profess belief in a glorious afterlife have nonetheless become curiously agitated on behalf of clinging to the faintest semblance of life by unnatural means. This makes no theological sense unless Mrs. Schiavo is assumed to be damned, which seems a very unChristian presumption."
This is a serious question and merits a serious answer. I shall presume that a clear reference from Scripture will suffice to explain the ambivalence Alan has correctly identified. Here it is, from Paul's letter to the church in Phillipi (Plilippians 1:21-24):
"21For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body."
As Paul makes clear, to long to be with Christ, or to wish to have another person be with Christ, does not suggest that we yearn for a quick death. Christians believe that God Himself is in and with every believer, through the presence of His Holy Spirit in the believer's body. We do not need to wait for that. The presence of God's very Spirit in a person, or in the case of an unbeliever the possibility that this happy circumstance could come to pass, is in fact a compelling reason for Christians to seek the preservation of human lives. To desire that Terri Schiavo not be sent to the afterlife before her appointed time is therefore neither strange nor perverse—it is thoroughly Christian.
My mother wrote such a living will a few years before she died of Alzheimer’s at 90. At the end she refused to open her mouth for food or water, consciously or not. Knowing her wishes, my sister and I were not about to force a tube down her throat.
Although death from Alzheimer’s was imminent and inevitable, the immediate cause of my mother’s death was probably dehydration (which precedes starvation). That is not uncommon at all. On the contrary, that is exactly how many if not most elderly people die if (1) they are not fortunate to die quickly and (2) they have left instructions that they do not wish to be kept alive by artificial means. Those present when my mother died said she did not appear to be in pain, though morphine would have been available if she had needed it. A morphine overdose might well have been more merciful, but laws against euthanasia leave no legal alternative to death by dehydration in many cases. Those who now bemoan death by dehydration usually admire laws against euthanasia, which is somewhat inconsistent when those are often the only two options for those who abhor prolonged artificial life support.
Many people believe themselves qualified to speak in the abstract about such matters, particularly concerning people they do not know. And they claim to view such tough choices as a clear and simple distinction between right and wrong.
I would first like to ask anyone blessed with such moral certitude if they object to living wills in principle (perhaps viewing such an Advance Medical Directive as akin to suicide). If not, I would ask if he or she could possibly imagine writing a living will for himself or herself that would instruct physicians to maintain the body by any means possible, even if the person in question was unable to move or communicate for 15 years (and potentially much longer). If they could honestly answer that question in the affirmative, I would ask how certain they are that such a fate is preferable to being buried alive with an oxygen tube and plenty of food and water.
Many who profess belief in a glorious afterlife have nonetheless become curiously agitated on behalf of clinging to the faintest semblance of life by unnatural means. This makes no theological sense unless Mrs. Schiavo is assumed to be damned, which seems a very unChristian presumption.
That is certainly correct.
It is, however, a perverse society indeed that rules that every vicious murderer under the age of 18 merits constitutional protection and cannot be executed, but we must allow the killing of a disabled woman whose husband claims she was appalled by the conditions of characters in bad TV movies a couple of decades ago.
We set off down this path, of course, when it was decided that the Constitution required state governments to allow doctors to kill children in the womb.
We have been led all the way to this current Mount of Olives by the nation's courts. The truly great shame, however, is that our legislators and executives have concurred in this judicial usurpation of their powers.
They are every bit as responsible as the courts. Therefore we, who elected them, are fully responsible for the present awful situation.
Florida governor Jeb Bush has tried to work with the courts to resolve the problem, but the Florida judges continue to insist that the state's courts' previous decisions in this matter have been unerring. A governor, however, has broad powers, and state statutes allow for the removal of a person who is under the care of another who has neglected them. The deliberate denial of food and water is worse than neglect. The only people who would be angry if Gov. Bush intervened to save Terri Schiavo's life are his most implacable enemies.
If Jeb Bush does not intervene, George Bush should do so.
If neither of those men musters up the courage to save Terri Schiavo, then truly we, the citizens of this nation who elected the governors, legislators, judges, and presidents who brought us to this pass, are ultimately responsible.
On this day of all days, Terri Schiavo's plight should be an arrow to the conscience of every American.
In my article at The American Spectator, I try to alert modern readers to the little-known aspects of the traditional view of Esther as more than just a beauty queen with a good heart.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Once the judges grasp that they are giving Catholicism a big fat present, they will suddenly find a loophole to let her live and return to obscurity.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
What is interesting is outcome of this test. One is braced for the typical media discussion of how religion is a major cause of wars in the world, and sure enough it comes along, explicitly, as the detectives discuss the implications of what this cult is doing.
Those who hold the view that religion is an illusion that does far more harm than good, however, are being set up for disappointment. It turns out [note: plot element revealed] that the murders are being commited by a lone fanatic, and the real motive force is not religion in itself but the fact that she suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. Religion is merely the substance to which her paranoia has attached itself. The events of the story make it quite clear that her disease is the killer, not religion.
In addition, there is a rather startling conclusion to the episode. The two main detectives are seen singing a hymn in the packed sanctuary of a lovely English church. In the wake of all the perverse imagery which made religion seem so foreign and dangerous, the scene presents quite a refreshing change. But that is not all: after the hymn, the female detective of the main pair goes to the front of the sanctuary to serve as a sponsor at the baptism of an infant. The film fades out with her repeating several lines from the baptismal liturgy, including those in which the sponsors and congregation renounce the devil and all his works.
As I have noted many different times on this site and elsewhere, the treatment of religion on American (and in this case, British) television has become much more sympathetic in recent years than most critics seem to realize.
Break out the asterisks, baby. If Bonds becomes the new holder of the most prestigious record in all of sports, we'll need a wheelbarrow full of them.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Here's a bit:
The doctor said that he wanted to make it very clear to both my mother and father that there was absolutely nothing that could be done for Oliver. He didn't want my parents to grasp at false hope. "You could place him in an institution," he said. "But," my parents replied, "he is our son. We will take Oliver home of course." The good doctor answered, "Then take him home and love him."
Oliver grew to the size of a 10-year-old. He had a big chest, a large head. His hands and feet were those of a five-year-old, small and soft. We'd wrap a box of baby cereal for him at Christmas and place it under the tree; pat his head with a damp cloth in the middle of a July heat wave. His baptismal certificate hung on the wall above his head. A bishop came to the house and confirmed him.
Even now, five years after his death from pneumonia on March 12, 1980, Oliver still remains the weakest, most helpless human being I ever met, and yet he was one of the most powerful human beings I ever met. He could do absolutely nothing except breathe, sleep, eat, and yet he was responsible for action, love, courage, insight. When I was small my mother would say, "Isn't it wonderful that you can see?" And once she said, "When you go to heaven, Oliver will run to you, embrace you, and the first thing he will say is 'Thank you."' I remember, too, my mother explaining to me that we were blessed with Oliver in ways that were not clear to her at first.
Judge James D. Whittemore, in deciding the Terri Schiavo case, did just as one might have expected, apparently deciding according to his personal beliefs and then finding ample legal justification for them. Legally, this one is not a slam dunk for either side. How could it be? There are too many conflicting rights and responsibilities in play.
In my view, Terri Schiavo's protectors, led by her parents, have fought a valiant fight for her life, but have not gained sufficient ground for their case in the public consciousness. It is important to recognize that the PR war in such cases is the real battleground, and in that realm they appear to me to have some work remaining to do. They must insistently emphasize and continue to keep at the forefront the fact that Terri Schiavo is not brain dead. She is by no means a normal candidate for a denial of food and water.
The New York Times agrees. In today's story by Abby Goodnough, the reporter noted, "She [Terri Schiavo] can breathe on her own and has periods of wakefulness, but Judge George Greer of Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court, who presided over the case, accepted the testimony of doctors who said she was in a 'persistent vegetative state' and incapable of thought or emotion."
That should have been the first and most persistent message of Terri's friends in the PR war: that she is not brain dead. She is alive and has periods of wakefulness. That is to say, she is like the rest of us, only her periods of sleep are longer and deeper. We are all in a persistent vegetative state, in the sense that sleep persistently comes to us each day whether we wish it or not.
By the logic of Michael Schiavo and his lawyers, any human being that could not get its own food and water—such as any infant or frail elderly person—could be said to be in a persistent vegetative state and denied these essentials of life and put to a slow, horrible death.
This is an argument that should be at the forefront of the case, and would have great effect, I think, in that it would shift the ground away from the public thinking that they would hate to be in Terri Schiavo's situation and would want someone there to protect their stated wishes (though not written in this case, and backed only by the party who is trying to have her killed) that they not be forced to live for many years though brain-dead. It would put the observer in Terri's position instead of Michael's.
The public would be encouraged to see the case as very different: of them being potentially forced to die because someone feels their presence too much of a burden.
The public must be made to feel as much sympathy for the disabled persons whose very lives are being debated as we now feel for those forced to make such agonizing decisions. Only when the public presses for legislative action will the law begin to reflect the needs of both parties in such cases, with a full respect for the rights of the helpless to live even when they pose a burden others do not wish to accept.
I will say it now: there is a word for what happens when a person puts another human being to death because the first person believes that the other stands in the way of his or her happiness.
It is murder.
I am calling it the "fessay", and I have created a separate blog of my own for the purpose of exploring and expanding this new concept.
Please go there and have a look. The very first fessay deals with the Terri Schiavo case. And if you like it, PLEASE TELL YOUR FRIENDS!!!!!! If it catches on, you will have witnessed history in the offing. Thanks, folks.
Monday, March 21, 2005
What the Democrats don’t understand is that federalism is scarcely in the DNA of the Republican party. The GOP fought against slavery and polygamy in the 19th century heedless of states’ rights in the process. The key issue for the GOP has traditionally been the dignity of the individual in a moral universe. Slavery and polygamy offended that principle because they involved lopsided relationships. The GOP fought the New Deal and socialism for the same reason. Statism tended to rob the individual of God-given dignity and introduce a new lopsided relationship – the individual before a monolith state.
The modern GOP has embraced federalism, but primarily as a method of keeping solutions as close to the individual as possible. States’ rights are a means, not an end in the GOP philosophy. It is the Democrats who made states’ rights the end-all-be-all during the era of slavery and later Jim Crow.
We saw the words of the Talmud (Brachot 8a) come to life: "God does not disdain the prayer of the many."
So many people, simple, genuine people, people from all walks of life, people from everywhere, rich and poor, brought their voices together in prayer. This was the America we know and love.
America showed its greatness this weekend, as people put down their toys and picked up their cudgels. We started a ratatat pounding on the gates of Heaven that brought the good angels forth in song and sent the dark angels scurrying off in fear.
There was an amazing radio moment a week ago that convinced me that mercy would eclipse severity and that a saving grace would be bestowed from Above. Glenn Beck missed a day and Denny Schaefer sat in for him. Schaefer was interviewing Terri's sister and in a moment of inspiration he literally promised her that God would make a miracle to save her. It was a completely insane thing to say; it had to have been a sort of prophetic intuition.
I believed all along, and stated here twice in the last two months, that this was a key test for our nation, that this was a watershed moment in the moral life of our culture. It looks like we have passed. God bless America.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
This much is certainly true. There is no need for the State to be providing a police presence to prevent individual people from giving Terri Schiavo any water on her lips.
The news is that Congress will coordinate their efforts tomorrow to pass the same bill in the House and Senate, so it can be rushed to the President for signature, allowing this case to be taken away from this judge and moved to Federal Court. Let's hope that this proves to be the thing that will save her for the long term. This horror has gone on long enough.
The hope that proceeds from this hope is that the nation might be galvanized to pass better laws to protect these people.
Oh, and - not to politicize; merely to observe - does anyone still remember when Democrats had compassion for the helpless?
Friday, March 18, 2005
As for this weird Michael Schiavo guy, let me refer you to Peggy Noonan today and also to my friend Jonathan V. Last of the Weekly Standard quoting Wesley J. Smith's work on this case.
I will reproduce here my note that I wrote Jonathan, responding to his quote from Wesley Smith that Michael Schiavo's initial motivation was to grab the money from her trust fund.
Unquestionably, Wesley's analysis of how this madness BEGAN is 100 percent correct.
However, it can no longer adequately explain what is happening. After paying for the lawyers, there is only about 50 thousand left in the account, and it's a good bet that once she's dead the lawyers will submit new billing to try to grab that sum.Furthermore, a San Diego businessman publicly offered Michael 1 million dollars last week to walk away, and he turned it down. That much is in the public record. He also claimed on Todd Schnitt's talk show down here that he turned down 10 million from a Boca Raton businessman. Glenn Beck's listeners have pledged about 3 million if he would back down. He has not bitten.
So why is he doing this NOW?
The answer, I suggest, reveals the ugliest side of human nature. People have a tendency to dig their heels in and persist in prosecuting a BAD DECISION much more than they stand behind their good decisions.
Yes, Virginia, there is Evil in the world. Not to mention stupid, stubborn, ornery cantankerousness.
I'm still not convinced, by any stretch of the imagination, that legislative action by the federal government is needed or appropriate in this matter. If the use of steroids is indeed a problem, state laws should certainly be able to handle it. However, performing an investigation to shine light on the problem is certainly an appropriate activity of Congress.
The reason given by the committee members as to why this particular committee was investigating the matter, however, is rather chilling. In short, they have noted that this committee is empowered to investigate anything it chooses to look into. Equipped with subpoena power, this makes the GROC into a central investigative tribunal for the federal government. Anyone who falls afoul of the interests of the Congress—which means anyone who falls afoul of popular opinion, as baseball's steroid users have obviously done—might be hauled before Congress and forced to testify in a nationally televised fishing expedition, with or without a grant of immunity from prosecution on either the federal or state level.
This is a nation that once prided itself on its respect for personal freedom, yet throughout the past half-century, since the rise of television, our chief legislative body has increasingly engaged in Communist-style show trials.
Here' a bit from his latest:
Terri Schiavo's case becomes a soap opera over her mostly inert body while the state legal establishment of Florida decides whether or not to "pull the plug" -- in this case, to remove her feeding tube. Even someone minimally aware, it seems to me, should not be subject to involuntary starvation and dehydration.
And one of this year's Oscar-winning movies depicts a supposedly "heroic" struggle wherein a crippled young female boxer persuades her wise, homely old trainer to...kill her. No, I haven't gone to see it, and won't. I've been too close.
Back in 1975, when my native kidneys failed, I got horribly sick all at once, not unusual with kidney failure. I had percarditis, couldn't walk well, had lost mental focus, had recently gone through a series of grand mal seizures related to an infection, can't remember what all, and it's probably just as well.
I found myself seriously considering whether or not to end it all -- to the extent that I was contemplating methods. Grace intervened, however, and I realized that people who think that way really aren't sane, and I asked to see a therapist. It hardly mattered who I talked to, but it did work.
Three things I remember from when my friends came to visit me in the hospital. One thing they all said later: "I thought you were going to die." To which I used to say, "If I ever get out of here, I'm going to get a motorcycle."
And the other was waking up at various times in my hospital bed, seeing my mother, always faithfully there, no matter what.
It is too damned easy to be cavalier and heroic about "dying with dignity" when somebody else is doing the dying.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Although I linked directly to the article, I suggest that you take the opportunity also to look over the home page. It has quickly become a truly excellent publication under the editorship of Kenneth Grubbs, Jr., a fine writer in his own right whose work is familiar to readers of The American Spectator and other conservative magazines. Ken selflessly left Washington D.C. two months ago to take the position, forsaking the climate of our nation's capital at its most delightful.
The logjam absolutely must break at some point here. Bush did better with African-Americans in 2004 than in 2000, but he did better with just about everybody. The simple question is this: When will African-Americans become so dismayed by social leftism and uber-secularity in the Democratic party as to make a decisive break?
It wouldn't take much. If the GOP were able to reliably take in a mere 20% of the African-American vote, the Democrats would be relegated to second party status for a long, long time. My proposal is that President Bush hold a major meeting with influential African-American leaders and offer the following deal. Affirmative action is off the table for twenty years. In return, he would expect greater backing from the black community, particularly on social issues. Call me crazy, but I think it would be Nixon goes to China and that it would work.
She began: "Paul Wolfowitz, who was the-a chief architect of one of the most unpopular wars in our history-
Bush interrupted: "That's an interesting start."
Bumiller: "Is your choice to be the president of the World Bank. What kind of signal does that send to the rest of the world?"
This is a reporter from the most prestigious media organization in the United States asking the president a question fraught with editorial bias. Bumiller should be ashamed. The NYT should be ashamed. This one small example should be taught in journalism schools (I know, an oxymoron) as a "how not to" lesson in asking questions at a press conference.
He has wisely distinguished between the War On Terrorism and issues that should elicit compassion as a primary response. Here is his must-read analysis of the New York Times giving the Iraq centrifuge story all the spin that's unfit to imprint.
Yes, irrespective of his periodic lapses into cardiac exsanguination, Hitchens is a fellow not to be ignored. My eternal gratitude is his for revealing in a 1996 American Enterprise interview the secret of Bill Clinton's "I did not inhale" statement. Hitchens, who was in Clinton's clique at Oxford, explained that Bill had trouble inhaling the smoke of marijuana cigarettes, so he preferred to ingest that narcotic through the medium of the brownie. Indeed, Chris noted, Bill's appetite for those brownies was voracious. (Perhaps he recalled pliable Brownies of his youth.)
Blake demonstrated throughout the process a nettlesome side that alienated three attorneys. But I would not hold him entirely blameworthy in this area, either; celebrity attorneys often mistakenly think themselves the celebrities and act accordingly imperious.
A less assuming barrister, M. Gerald Schwartzbach, piloted the case to acquittal. This touching tribute by Blake to his lawyer's perseverance shows that the actor is a far gentler man than his tough-guy persona projects.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
He notes in passing that this idea had become a tradition but need not be indulged on that basis, the very argument that my late mother advanced to discourage me from picking my nose.
Who bred this class of the morally blinkered? They not only throw out the baby, they love covering themselves in the bathwater.
This Kramer calls himself, comically, a Catholic, yet he, like most of the Men In Black, believes in being cheeky at every turn.
He claims too the appellation of Republican, yet he abdicates the sacred role of lore enforcement.
He has dealt a blow to our matrimony; he has dealt a blow to our patrimony.
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Fumento has made the column available on his excellent and informative website.
The column was spiked, as the journalists' lingo has it, because it pointed out some surprising and rather dismaying facts about the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, "the world's largest juvenile diabetes philanthropy," as Fumento notes. Fumento points out that the foundation distributed "over $85 million in grants last year. Yet it supports no efforts that could lead to a cure any time soon for this blinding and crippling disease that afflicts as many as 1.7 million Americans. Instead it's become a lobby for controversial embryonic stem cell research and refuses to help fund the only study that could soon bring a cure."
"The top item on JDRF's 'issue information' page," Fumento notes, "is 'Embryonic Stem Cell Research,' with subcategories like Progress with Embryonic Stem Cell Research. It also bashes what many see as an alternative that's both medically superior and carries no moral baggage – adult stem cells. Its 'Limitations of Adult Stem Cell Research' link is packed with such disinformation as 'Adult stem cells cannot be induced to develop into any cell type.' In fact, since 2002 at least four different labs have published results indicating they can."
Most indefensible of all, Fumento reports, is that JDRF has twice rejected Harvard researcher Dr. Denise Faustman, who Fumento notes "was the first to cure diabetes in mice and now seeks funds for a clinical trial to replicate her fantastic results in humans. Thrice she has applied to JDRF; thrice they have rejected her. Never mind her impeccable credentials and that she even reviewed grants for JDRF.
"Her transgression," Fumento argues, "seems to be that her treatment involves restoring dead insulin-producing cells in the pancreas with ASCs already present in the body. Despite what the JDRF would have you think, there have already been tremendous breakthroughs in ASC therapy, with over 80 treatments and almost 300 human clinical trials underway – versus zero treatments or trials for ESCs. Still, nothing would belie the false claims of ESC lobbyists more than curing diabetes with ASCs."
JDRF refused to talk with Fumento while he was working on his article, well aware of his previous writings in support of research into adult stem cells. Then, despite the damning evidence Fumento had adduced and the obvious importance of the issue (millions of dollars of charity being diverted to a different use), Scripps Howard refused to run the column, giving no explanation to newspaper editors who receive the syndicate's materials. Fumento states emphatically that when the JDRF found out that he was doing an article about them, through his request for an interview, they called his editor at Scripps Howard and convinced her that the column had to be killed.
Those who wish to contact Fumento's Scripps Howard editor and her superiors about the matter can find the contact info here. In deciding on the right response, please remember that emails are easy to ignore but telephone calls make a very big impression.
Welcome, Grace Frances Baker. Congratulations to the happy parents. In the midst of such blessing - and tumult - are doctorates born.
The theory which I wish to propound is homely enough: I have come to believe from observing at close hand the vagaries of the human condition that many associations tarred as "affairs" are in reality teasing flirtations that fall well short of consummation. As celebrated in the song "Something To Talk About" by Bonnie Raitt, many office rumors are the cause rather than the result of real liaisons. Often the not-so-guilty parties have been playing along with the speculation as a form of macho strutting or coquettish role-playing and later find it hard to deny accusations of substantive misconduct.
Indeed if anyone here has suffered in real ways as the result of an affair that was imputed and reputed by folks but disputed by the facts, I would be grateful indeed if you could comment. If this is too public a forum, let me know and perhaps we can communicate by e-mail.
In any case, the best policy is to follow the Talmud's advice (and Billy Graham's famed practice) and avoid being behind a locked door with someone whom others might take to be your paramour. Otherwise, you might pass up the temptation and still be the target of pernicious gossip.