Atheists for Terri
March 30, 2005 | 123 Comments
Long-time civil libertarian and atheist Nat Hentoff, on the Judicial Murder of Terri Schiavo: “[W]e have watched as this woman, whose only crime is that she is disabled, is tortured to death by judges, all the way to the Supreme Court . . . . [i]n this country, even condemned serial killers are not executed in this way.” Among other things, Hentoff derides the “disgracefully ignorant coverage” of the case by the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles times, and notes that “nearly every major disability rights organization in the country has filed a legal brief in support of Terri’s right to live.” Read the whole thing.
As Hentoff notes, Ralph Nader also finds the treatment of the doomed woman to be a “profound injustice.”
So it’s not just the religious right.
March 30th, 2005 @ 9:10 am
Nat Hentoff is also a noted anti-abortionist. It’s not unusual that he finds himself in the pro-Terri side.
March 30th, 2005 @ 9:12 am
I can’t even begin to document the distortions, inaccuracies, and omissions in that editorial.
March 30th, 2005 @ 9:19 am
I can’t even begin to document the distortions, inaccuracies, and omissions in that editorial. “Judicial murder” indeed.
Note: It’s not “the pro-Terri side.” The fact that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to be kept alive via a feeding tube is supported not just by Michael Schiavo, but other relatives.
March 30th, 2005 @ 9:28 am
Please RA, the “other atheists are saying it too so I must be right” argument is pretty ridiculous. According to everything I’ve read, Terri Shiavo can’t feel anything in the state she’s in, so I can’t engender much sympathy for her either way. She’s either going to die soon or live on unconsciously for some time. But the self-righteousness of the pro-tubers is just nauseating. I can’t believe anyone would want to be associated with them, whatever one’s personal feelings may be.
March 30th, 2005 @ 9:50 am
… “tortured to death by judges, all the way to the Supreme Court”
With phrasing like that, who needs facts?
Apparently a repeated, careful review by several judges, after thorough presentation of the facts by attorneys for both sides, at the highest judicial levels is not good enough. No, no, no! We will not let this poor body that died 15 years ago die. We must condemn it to linger in some twilight existence between life and death.
If this happened to a dog, we would euthanize it in a week.
March 30th, 2005 @ 9:55 am
Terminal cancer patients have chosen to have their feeding tube removed as their choice of how to die. Those people were conscious and provided definitive evidence that they did not feel any pain at all. They felt hunger on the first day, but there was no pain. They got tired, fell asleep and died.
On top of the fact that most of her brain is completely dead, including the portions that process pain signals. From what I have readm they are giving her morphene as a precaution and to keep her asleep, but no one feels it is necessary.
The people crying that this is a cruel way to die are talking out of their ass. What is cruel is putting this poor woman on display to further theistic causes.
March 30th, 2005 @ 9:58 am
“Please RA, the ‘other atheists are saying it too so I must be right’ argument is pretty ridiculous.”
I don’t think that this is what RA is doing at all. He’s just making the point that their ARE sensible people who take both sides of this issue. I tend to think at RA is, in fact, wrong on this issue, but I certainly respect the way he values life.
March 30th, 2005 @ 10:15 am
I think at this point that the physical impact on the unfortuante Terri is largely irrelevant. Is preserving her in a coma so important that we’re willing to destroy our legal system in the process, and empower a bunch of nuts, crooks, and hypocrites like Bennet, Frist, and DeLay? I like Nat Hentoff, but 100 guys like Nat don’t change the fact that the theocrats have piled on to this situation as a way of furthering their political agenda by whatever means necessary –including undermining the rule of law when it suits their convience. Fortunately, our legal system, bad as it is at times, has not yet been so perverted that outrageous political posturing and propaganda has changed a court ruling based on a determination of fact –but that is clearly the goal of of many in the so called “pro-Terri” camp. God help us all if these people “win” and make the courts just another political forum for demagogues.
March 30th, 2005 @ 10:15 am
“Values life”? WTF? I can hardly think of something more valuable to me than the right to determine whether I live or die in a particular manner. If Terri Schiavo felt she would rather die if she were in the condition she is in today (an attitude I rather share), then she should be able to have that wish granted. Why does anyone seriously dispute this notion?
So once again, the issue is whether everyone spouting about her life gets to substitute their judgment on the facts and the evidence for the judgment of the myriad courts that have actually reviewed the case.
March 30th, 2005 @ 10:19 am
I just find it so damn ironic that the majority of the “pro-tubers” are christian (or otherwise religious) but yet these very same people who profess to know what is waiting in the afterlife are usually the ones you find clinging so desperately to that which they claim is just the beginning of their spiritual journey. Which just goes on to prove that deep down inside these fuckards harbor the same questions (doubts, fears, etc.) about the afterlife that most of us have. I also find it interesting that the Jews and the Muslims have been almost completely silent on this issue, which shows that this issue, for the most part isolated to your run of the mill “ignorant-self-righteous-pro-life-anti-reality-self-contradicting-intolerant-scaredy-cats” who on one hand profess to understand death and aren’t afraid of it because they are “saved” and going to heaven but on the other, would do anything to prolong their lives for just one more second because in reality, they are absolutely terrified of the unknown-which in fact is the whole reason why religion, ANY religion ever existed in the first place, to explain away the unknown. These people live in a fantasy world, where reason is non-existent, but at least they are consistent in their total lack of reason I’ll give ‘em that.
March 30th, 2005 @ 10:24 am
This is an absolutely pathetic issue. At least with the social security garbage, you can find numbers to support you, but in this case it’s all rumor. Most of these doctors who are apparently on the side of Terri’s parents have never met Terri herself, just like Judge Greer, and yet you accept their opinions as valid because they support your world view. Greer, however, needed to have seen her in person to perform a diagnosis. Each and every doctor who has actually seen Terri… well, they must be wrong!
Now, I’d be perfectly happy with Nader’s suggestion that her guardianship be transfered to the parents, their marriage nulled, and Michael allowed to get on with his life, while Terri’s parents have the satisfaction of watching her still-breathing corpse for the rest of their lives. But perhaps–just perhaps–Michael has stuck with her for the last ten years because he really does know her wishes, and he loves–or loved–her enough to see them through.
March 30th, 2005 @ 11:08 am
let me get this straight. we live in a world where there are millions of starving people. terri comes along and intentionally pukes up perfectly good meals which leads to her present condition.
and i’m supposed to feel compassion for her now?
March 30th, 2005 @ 11:13 am
[T]hat Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to be kept alive via a feeding tube is supported not just by Michael Schiavo, but other relatives.
Only by his own brother and sister-in-law (not Terri’s side). Terri’s family have claimed the opposite.
…a repeated, careful review by several judges…
Judges get things wrong all the time. Take the 9th Circuit, for instance. They’re overturned on appeal more than 70% of the time. They would have a better record if they simply flipped a coin!
If this happened to a dog, we would euthanize it in a week.
But you’d go to jail if you starved it to death.
Terminal cancer patients have chosen to have their feeding tube removed as their choice of how to die.
The difference is that those patience are terminal, dying of some other cause and have explicitly expressed their wishes. All Terri is dying from is lack of food and water. If she’s incapable of feeling pain, as the euthanization crowd contends in regard to her being dehydrated to death, where’s the harm in letting her live a little longer, even if you believe, as I do, that she will never get any better?
Is preserving her in a coma…
Uh, she’s not in a coma.
God help us all if these people “win” and make the courts just another political forum for demagogues.
Some might say it’s already thus.
If Terri Schiavo felt she would rather die if she were in the condition she is in today, then she should be able to have that wish granted. Why does anyone seriously dispute this notion?
I think all reasonable people agree that if having nutrition withheld from her was in fact Terri’s wish, it should be respected. But it’s not at all clear, the judge’s finding notwithstanding, that that’s the case.
March 30th, 2005 @ 11:22 am
“Judges get things wrong all the time. Take the 9th Circuit, for instance. They’re overturned on appeal more than 70% of the time. They would have a better record if they simply flipped a coin!”
Isn’t the 9th Circuit usually overturned on its LEGAL reasoning/conclusions, rather than its FACTUAL determinations?
March 30th, 2005 @ 11:31 am
Zod, that’s probably true, as the standard for reviewing findings of fact are much higher. But I think my point still stands that judges aren’t infallable, and that given the higher standards for fact-finding determinations, wrong calls often slip by the appellate courts. I’m not making a call for the barricades, but it doesn’t mean we have to like it, or agree with it, either.
March 30th, 2005 @ 11:36 am
P.S. Imagine this: “Sorry, Galileo, but the court has already made the finding of fact that the sun and planets revolve around the earth.”
March 30th, 2005 @ 12:22 pm
[i]P.S. Imagine this: “Sorry, Galileo, but the court has already made the finding of fact that the sun and planets revolve around the earth.”[/i]
It wasn’t the judges that tried to pull that one, it was the fundies.
March 30th, 2005 @ 12:29 pm
I thought the Church and the courts were one and the same back then.
March 30th, 2005 @ 12:30 pm
“Please RA, the ‘other atheists are saying it too so I must be right’ argument is pretty ridiculous.”
I don’t think that this is what RA is doing at all. He’s just making the point that their ARE sensible people who take both sides of this issue.
I grant your point. Nevertheless, the gist of Hentoff’s argument is the same as the gist of the thousands of arguments coming from the religious right and the Republicans in Congress – that they know one or more of these things better than the Florida court which has been deliberating the case for over a decade–Terri’s health, Terri’s desire to die or stay alive, Florida law, the U.S. Constitution, or Michael Shiavo’s motives. It’s pure hubris, and whether it’s atheists saying it or religious people, I don’t see any purpose to their argument except to score ideological points in the pro-life/pro-choice culture war.
March 30th, 2005 @ 12:42 pm
…the Florida court has been deliberating the case for over a decade … I don’t see any purpose to their argument except to score ideological points…
What about the right to dissent? I thought the Left cherished that kind of thing. Or is it just a one-way street?
March 30th, 2005 @ 12:58 pm
What about the right to dissent? I thought the Left cherished that kind of thing. Or is it just a one-way street?
I’m not a member of the Left, so I can’t really say anything about the proper Leftist position. What I was trying to say in the sentence that you quoted is that as much as the pro-tubers may like to talk about their concern for Ms. Shiavo’s welfare, I find it very hard to take them seriously considering that the same thing has been happening for years to thousands of other people with hardly a peep from anyone except extreme pro-lifers. The only thing that distinguishes Ms. Shiavo’s situation from others is that Jeb Bush’s wildly inappropriate involvement in the court case followed by Congress’s wildly inappropriate involvement in the court case made the whole situation a headline-grabbing affair.
March 30th, 2005 @ 1:07 pm
Thousands of other severly disabled people have been starved to death (or dehydrated to death) on state court orders? If true, it’s news to me. There’s really nothing inappropriate about Congress’ involvement in this case, at least from a legal standpoint. See Article III of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment thereof. I also don’t see the inappropriateness from a moral or ethical standpoint either, considering their involvement was at the behest of Terri’s own family.
March 30th, 2005 @ 1:07 pm
Jebus H. Chrizzits, this is cut and dry. Michael is legally responsible for acting in Terri’s interests. His position is that she would not want to be kept alive like this, so it is his right to refuse the feeding tubes on her behalf. The only thing that could be challenged is if he is acting in her interest. If he is found to not be doing so, then he could be removed as the guardian. But, it should no longer have anything to do with the decisions made by the guardian if that person is acting in her interest.
March 30th, 2005 @ 1:17 pm
Has anyone else out there thought how ironic it is that the pope has now been put on a feeding tube, along with respretory assistance. now in theory it is medically possible to keep his body functioning until it finally rots off something vital. Given the pontifs comments regarding this case I am assuming that we can look forward to a long torturous demise for the father of all things evil in the world ?
March 30th, 2005 @ 1:17 pm
That’s not true, Andy. The issue isn’t the husband’s subjective intent on removing her feeding tube, but rather what Terri’s wishes were. The judge gave the husband’s testimony on that issue more weight than a lot folks think was proper, but the focus was always on Terri’s wishes, not what the husband thinks should happen to her now.
March 30th, 2005 @ 1:20 pm
Michael C.-
Thousands of people have been “starved” or “dehydrated” because the law allows people to be taken off of life support should they so choose. As far as court involvement, it’s usually not necessary because there is usually not family disagreement. But not many people have living wills, so more often than not, the choice of life or death is made by the spouse if the person cannot voice his or her own wishes. But if it is court cases you’re interested in, here are two cases that nobody is talking about. Of course, I’m sure the tubers are just as worked up over these cases as the Schiavo case, it’s just the evil media who is ignoring them.
March 30th, 2005 @ 1:21 pm
You are right, Micheal C, but I meant it should be his call, and his alone. In this case, since her wishes correspond to his actions, there should be no problem.
March 30th, 2005 @ 1:30 pm
The world and especially the religous is so full of bullshit I can brealy stand it.
First, the christians claim the believe in the sanctity of marriage. The “holy” relations between a husband and a wife. If that is so we MUST accept Micael Schiavo’s word that this is what Terri wanted. It is hypocracy to suggest the holy relatinship can be ignored as soon as it gives us an answer we don’t want.
Secondly, your silly “god” has been calling Terri home for 15 years. It is human intervention keeping her alive. Remove the tube. If “god” wants her to live then he can feed her. Period. That is the whole point of faith. God will provide.
Lastly, and on a realistic note, keeping her alive is a waste of resources. Its a waste of a bed. Its a waste of electricity and food. Its as WASTE OF TIME. Terri is not going to get any better. Period. This is it. It is unconscionable to think people insist this “thing” needs to be sustained where there is no possibility of improvement. Terri died 15 years ago. Its time to accept it. These resources need to be spent on someone with a chance of recovery or at least some meaningful quality of life.
Lastly, no one makes a big point of the fact that she did this to herself through bulimia. Terri brought this on her self. Its what she wanted. Since bulimia is triggered by emotional problems in childhood (primarily) it is no wonder her parents want to keep her alive against all rationality. They must feel terrible guilt over the way Terri was raised. It was their raising her that caused the emotional problems. They are trying to keep her alive to probably right some wrong that only they know they did.
Time to say goodbye. Let her rest.
D
March 30th, 2005 @ 1:45 pm
There is the right to dissent, which the left does hold sacred, but the rule of law also needs to be respected. Where the law conflicts with our morality, we might protest or fight the law, only some of us are willing to break it, and when we do we accept the consequences–or continue to fight the law. That’s the essence of civil disobedience. Keep in mind, there are always exceptions.
What I have a problem with, is the government trying to undermine the authority of the courts. Jeb Bush attempted to use state agencies to remove Terri from the hospice and force the reinsertion of her feeding tubes, but was blocked by local police who insisted on enforcing the court order. Such action cannot be accepted in a democracy.
March 30th, 2005 @ 1:46 pm
#12 stu,
Excellent point, I couldn’t agree more. She was responsible for her actions.
As for TRA sticking with this “culture of life” crap, it is sad indeed. Terri is a mockery of life. Consciousness comes from the brain, the parts of the brain that provide this are gone in Terri. She is brainDEAD. IT is a shell. IT is DEAD. Only the shell remains, and that’s more cruel than having IT starve. I would advocate a quick and lethal injection, but then I would be against the “culture of life”. One day I hope to find and join the “culture of making sense.” I’ll send postcards showing how happy people are knowing that they will not be left to rot in a shell for decades after their brains stop functioning properly.
March 30th, 2005 @ 1:49 pm
Freddy, in both of those cases the patients are dying from a terminal illness, which is very different from the Schiavo case where she’s not suffering from a terminal illness and does not require “life support” other than food and water, which we all need. I’m not against people choosing to refuse medical assistance (whether it’s a feeding tube or a ventilator), and I think the Texas hospital was probably wrong to deny the child further care as the mother wanted, but in the Nikolouzos case the court stepped and sided with the family to keep him alive, so I’m not sure how this supposedly makes the “pro-lifers” look bad.
Andy, but I don’t know that his actions are, in fact, corresponding to her wishes. That seems to be the point of disagreement, at least among reasonable people. Personally, I don’t see how the judge was able to resolve these doubts in favor of killing her slowly when her parents, siblings and friends seem no less credible on the issue and want to be responsible for her care. (See some accounts here.)
March 30th, 2005 @ 1:58 pm
thanks, mookie.
i also find it especially ironic that everyone is against the method in which we are proportedly “killing her”.
she obviously had no problem starving herself to begin with, so if the shoe fits…
March 30th, 2005 @ 2:01 pm
Michael C-
For me, terminal illness vs. persistent vegetative state is just a question of tomato or tomahto, although I’ll grant that this could be a point of moral debate. It’s just not a debate I’m interested in having.
Nevertheless, I think the point I made several posts ago that spouses have been deciding to “starve”, “dehydrate” or “smother” (cut off artificial respiration) their terminal or vegetative significant others has been happening for years with nobody saying much about it. In addition, court cases disputing who gets to decide such matters have been happening for years, which is why the Schlindlers have been faring so badly in court, because the precedent that the spouse should be the primary guardian in such cases is a long-established one. Once again, I’ve never heard anybody speak out about this precedent or the court cases that set such precedent until the Schiavo case. Maybe, Michael C., you have been actively speaking out on such matters for years, but many others have not, including RA, so I find it a little contrived that suddenly when this high-profile case comes along, all the tubers are suddenly up in arms about the immorality of American courts and spouses who want to “murder” their vegetative husbands or wives.
March 30th, 2005 @ 2:08 pm
Jeb Bush attempted to use state agencies to remove Terri from the hospice and force the reinsertion of her feeding tubes, but was blocked by local police who insisted on enforcing the court order. Such action cannot be accepted in a democracy.
You mean like what Clinton did when he sent in armed INS agents to seize Elian Gonzalez and deport him despite rulings by Florida courts granting custody to his Miami family? In the Schiavo case, I think there was some inital dispute over whether the Florida Child and Family Services had such authority to intervene on Terri’s behalf. And at least Jeb Bush backed down when it was decided they didn’t.
March 30th, 2005 @ 2:10 pm
Fair enough, Freddy. You’ve made some valid points.
March 30th, 2005 @ 2:17 pm
So it
March 30th, 2005 @ 2:32 pm
Michael C said What about the right to dissent? I thought the Left cherished that kind of thing.
Come ON amigo. Rebel without a cause? Dissent for dissents sake? Anarchy? – and NO that is NOT a strawman. Anarchy IS the ultimate in Rebellion without a cause. It may sound nice to some, even me at times, in a Utopian kind of way. But that argument of Dissent for Dissent’s makes Michael Moore look like a positively Patriotic Nationalist.
I dissent frequently: ALWAYS with a Reason so that I can change my mind if Reason proves me wrong or off-base.
March 30th, 2005 @ 2:35 pm
I enjoyed the Michael Moore bit, Bains, but those who are dissenting in this case believe they have both a reason and a cause.
March 30th, 2005 @ 2:41 pm
“You mean like what Clinton did ….”
Well, if Clinton did it. Two wrongs make a right then.
“What about the right to dissent?”
YOU have a right to dissent the contents of personal conversations I’ve had with MY wife?
“Only by his own brother and sister-in-law (not Terri’s side). Terri’s family have claimed the opposite.”
I’ve got news for you, MY wife tells me things she doesn’t want her family to know. I suspect this is true for lots of people for lots of different reasons. I also tell her things I don’t care if her family knows but I don’t want my family to know. Terri’s husband must be a pretty nice level headed guy. Any Bible Beating assholes try to insert themselves into my marriage, my private communications with my wife, the motherfuckers just might get shot.
“… I think my point still stands that judges aren’t infallable…”
Neither are baseball umpires or football referees. Why don’t we just have the viewers vote on their calls? And I guess we better get rid of the dealth penalty then, since no human system is infallable. Funny though, I’ve never heard the Bible Beaters making that case. Or suggesting that, say, the president is fallible, or the congress, so maybe we shouldn’t drop bombs on women and children in some foreign country. Then I think they say something like, we have a system of law to make those decisions as best we can, and sometimes, well, you know……you can’t make an omlette without breaking eggs.
March 30th, 2005 @ 3:29 pm
YOU have a right to dissent the contents of personal conversations I’ve had with MY wife?
You mean the alleged conversion Michael Schiavo had with his. That’s the whole issue, Herm. I’ve already said that if in fact that conversation took place, her wishes should be respected. Where’s the confusion?
I’ve got news for you, MY wife tells me things she doesn’t want her family to know.
Except that the testimony of some of her family friends was that she had said in the past that she didn’t believe it was right to deny disabled persons care so that they would die sooner. See the link I provided above, where you’ll also find the sworn testimony of a coworker of hers who said Terri confided in her that she was thinking about divorce and discussed moving in with her just prior to her injury. There’s a lot of conflicting testimony, to be sure, and that’s why I don’t understand how the judge could safely find in favor of killing her. But I know others disagree.
…no human system is infallable…
I never said it had to be. I’m just saying I think the judge was wrong in this case. You’re entitled to your opinion. You really lost me from here on.
March 30th, 2005 @ 3:43 pm
but those who are dissenting in this case believe they have both a reason and a cause.
Truth. Unfortunately for them and Michael Shiavo, & this whole freakin’ country it sure does seem, what they believe is in opposition to the fact that Terry’s husband is, by All precedent and, as many have said before, this includes silly religious precedent (which is of course LOL! irrelevant…) the only person whose statements count.
According to Michael, Terry said DNR.
Case closed if no evidence is found showing Michael to have been a less than decent husband. And, oh yah!, that is open-ended. The opponents of her right to choose such an option have provided no evidence for Michael’s sadism or ego-mania. They have done the opposite and can write all the books they want expressing what they believe. They really should think about doing such for buceau bucks since I believe a class-action suit demanding that they pay all those court costs and the fuel for Air Force One (I know the last is spurious) is soon to follow.
March 30th, 2005 @ 4:06 pm
“You mean the alleged conversion Michael Schiavo had with his.”
Oh, he never had a conversation with his wife? Must have been a pretty quiet marriage.
“I’ve already said that if in fact that conversation took place, her wishes should be respected.”
“I never said it had to be. [infallible] I’m just saying I think the judge was wrong in this case.”
A judge, who weighed testimony given under oath –not unsworn statements, hearsay, and personal opinions. So, where’s the confusion? It’s where you agree that we have a legal system to decide cases like this, that it is not infallible, that Terri’s wishes are paramount, that the judge ruled that Terri’s wish under the circumstances was to die, and yet you’re all over the place that “her” family, or some family friend, says this or that, you compare interference in this case to Clinton’s interference in another case, you’re apparently a Republican (a group who supposed believes in State’s rights –at least when convienient), and you’re here going on and on about the screwed up judge and seem to be arguing that because you think the judge is wrong, the process of law should be overturned.
And by the way, when it comes to making personal decisions, MY family is not my parents or my brother, and MY wife’s family is not her parents or her sister: OUR family is us and our kids; and when my kids get married and have their own families I expect they will have conversations and beliefs they don’t share with me or my wife. What goes on between me and my wife is none of my parent’s or her parent’s fucking business. We don’t share our personal decisions with parents or siblings. People don’t always reveal the innermost thoughts they share with a spouse to friends or other family members. There are things between me and my wife that are only known to me and my wife. Things that my parents or her parents or other family members might even find surprising or shocking. No one knows my wife like I do -NO ONE– and no one knows me like she does -NO ONE. I find the notion that either of our parents should have the right to interfere in our private decisions with regards to ourselves or our relationship outrageous and offensive in the extreme. Frankly, I wouldn’t tolerate it. I’ll do what my wife wants, anybody that trys to interfere better watch the fuck out.
March 30th, 2005 @ 4:10 pm
After reading all the stuff about Terri posted in TRA, I’d like to summarize the facts, findings or doubts. And then try to conclude.
1.- Terri has no cortex
2.- Terri is in PVS – 15 years
3.- Her husband sustain she informed him his will (in doubt-no witness in terri’s side)
4.- probabilities of recovering: now zero
5.- Terri’s death won’t benefit her husband (in doubt- there is information on the contrary but it can be wrong)
6.- She is suffering: in doubt (contradictory opinions)
7.-Under the law who decides?: the husband
8.- What decision would Terri made, if she knew her condition? it seems obvious she woul die.
9.-The husband has a common-law wife and two siblings
10.- The parents wishes take care of her.
11.- taking the tube out is euthanasia?: Yes
12.- Christians accept euthanasia? some. Catholics not at all.
13.- what about jews and muslims? I dont know, but they are silent.
14.- Atheists: They are divided
15.- is the position of the parents respectable?. It is
16.- Is reasonable: may be not.
17.- excluding the law: who is the best caretaker, husband or parents? generally, the parents.
18.-is there any difference for Terri, in her present estate, to be killed mercily or to be given to her parents? No
19.- and for the parents?: a very big one.
20.- And for the husband? obviously yes, but maybe we’ll never know the true reasons because these reasons are not obvious analyzing the case.
21.- At the end, this is a problem between husband and parents. Terri is out.
22.- If a were a judge who has to make the decision, what will I do in a ideal scenario? (no interference of government, churches, media and politics-no restricting laws)
23.- If I were the judge, which criterion I’d use for deciding?
I will use, as criterion, to make a decision that minimizes the added pain of the parties. (Obviously you can no apply mathematical measurement.)
Accordingly, I will leave Terri to her parents.
March 30th, 2005 @ 4:16 pm
Michael C said: “Andy, but I don’t know that his actions are, in fact, corresponding to her wishes. That seems to be the point of disagreement, at least among reasonable people. Personally, I don’t see how the judge was able to resolve these doubts in favor of killing her slowly when her parents, siblings and friends seem no less credible on the issue and want to be responsible for her care.”
First, it is not a question of who wants to be responsible for her care, it is a question of what her wishes were.
Second, the court found by clear an convincing evidence that Terri would not want to be kept alive artificially. The judge (and all the appellate judges who affirmed the decision) did not just have a hunch or a feeling that she’d want to taken off the machines. Clear and convincing evidence is a much higher standard. It is more than piling up the evidence and seeing which side is more persuasive (that would be a preponderance). Yes, the court could be wrong, but none of us were there to hear the testimony or see the witnesses’ testify. There is no credible evidence that the court got it wrong. Second-guessing motives and truthfulness is easy. That is why we have the court system to weigh the specific facts in a case.
March 30th, 2005 @ 4:18 pm
MBains helped me concentrate my thoughts Mr. MC. Where’s my confusion? I’m confused about just how whatever conversation did or did not take place between Terri and her husband, it is any of your business, or her parents business, or a friends business. Nothing the judge decided affected me or my family. As MBains said, this case has been decided in accordance with precedent. But if people like you get their way, it will be my business and affect my life, because it opens the door to political intervention in my private family life and to outside interference with private understandings my wife and I have come to after many years of marriage.
March 30th, 2005 @ 5:18 pm
I’m confused about just how whatever conversation did or did not take place between Terri and her husband, it is any of your business, or her parents business, or a friends business.
First of all, it was the court’s duty to determine what Terri’s wishes were. I can live with that. I’m not calling for the “process of law to be overturned.” I simply disagree with the decision as I don’t see how, given the conflicting testimony and the seeming credibility of her parents and friends, the judge sided with the disaffected husband who started another family years ago. I don’t think many of you have actually read the court testimony that support the parents’ position. It’s no less credible than Michael Schiavo’s. It’s all of our business when the state (in this case a state court judge) decides to issue an order that a person be starved to death. This is most certainly a federal issue, too, as a life and liberty matter, not some minor commerce issue.
If you were married to my sister and wanted to have her put down against what I thought were her genuine wishes, you’d be the one who had best watch out! By the way, how long were these two married? Were they having troubles? What was Terri’s relationship with her parents? Does any of this matter? I think it does, and I think the judge gave disproportionate weight to the husband’s testimony. But that’s just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
First, it is not a question of who wants to be responsible for her care, it is a question of what her wishes were.
I don’t disagree.
Second, the court found by clear an convincing evidence that Terri would not want to be kept alive artificially.
I’m not sure that clear and convincing was the standard used in the 2000 trial. Do you have a link to that I could check? I’d also disagree with the notion that she’s being kept alive artificially. All she needs is food and water, as do we all. A feeding tube is not “extraodinary means,” but rather minimal means. One doesn’t have to think hard to find other disabled patients who cannot feed themselves or even swallow. How far are we going to carry this? Absent a living will, we will never know we’ll never know what Terri’s wishes really were. Maybe I’m wrong. I hope so, for Terri’s sake.
March 30th, 2005 @ 5:28 pm
“All she needs is food and water, as do we all. A feeding tube is not “extraodinary means,” but rather minimal means.”
She does not need food and water like the rest of us – she needs to be fed through a machine, just like people on respirators don’t need air “like the rest of us” – they need a machine to breathe for them. Put a big plate of food and drink next to her, and she won’t be any better off. Her bodily functions were being maintained by a machine, because she can’t survive on her own. It’s not like someone was spoon-feeding her.
March 30th, 2005 @ 5:42 pm
Hermesten:
43% of couples who married this year in America will end divorced.
Would you think those 43% of couples, after they divorce, will think wise leave to the spouse decide on matter of life and death?
Parents are no perfect , but in matter of life and death instinct is on their side if Darwin was right.
March 30th, 2005 @ 5:51 pm
Would you think those 43% of couples, after they divorce, will think wise leave to the spouse decide on matter of life and death?
After they divorce, the other person is no longer a “spouse”, so unless specifically stated in a living will or other such document, I would assume someone else would be doing the deciding.
March 30th, 2005 @ 6:06 pm
Andy:
My english is poor. So excuse me.
My point is: If you are a divorced because your marriage was terrible wrong, may be your experience teach you to be aware that spouses don’t behave usually as expected.
Many rich men and women have learnt and paid this lesson with a fat check.
March 30th, 2005 @ 6:10 pm
Simbol, realistically, this decision isn’t going to come up much among the population of people who are married and divorced within one year. The point, as MBains indicated, is that the legal system already has an established precedent where, generally, the testimony of the spouse is given greater weight. The court has already weighed the evidence and decided that Terri did not wish to be kept alilve under her present circumstances. Sorry, but even with all the flaws in our system I’d rather have the court sit as last resort in cases like this than the parents. And my wife after even only a year of living with me had a far better grasp on my desires than my parents.
March 30th, 2005 @ 6:13 pm
And Simbol, your parents can only act in your interest if they know what that interest is. It seems like kind of a wierd relationship to me, where everyone but my wife is supposed to know more about what my interests are. I don’t even see the point of being married to someone who shares greater confidences with her parents, friends, and siblings, than she does with her own husband.
March 30th, 2005 @ 6:32 pm
“If you were married to my sister and wanted to have her put down against what I thought were her genuine wishes, you’d be the one who had best watch out!”
What YOU thought were her genuine wishes –wow, how arrogant and presumptuous of you. You must be a real pain in the ass BIL. You’re going to substitute and impose YOUR judgement of what your sister wants over that of a man that she loved and trusted and gave her life to for over 20 years –a partner who shares intimate moments, thoughts, and feelings, that you can only guess at. I don’t know anything about you and your sister, but if you’ve got anything like a normal relationship you don’t spend the hours and hours with her that her husband does, through good and bad times, sad times, and happy times. You could never know your sister as a husband could. Again, I don’t know about your sister, but if she has a strong character like my wife does and got a whiff of your arrogant attitude or found your nose where it didn’t belong -like trying to overrule her husband about what she wanted– she’d tell you to take aflying fuck through a rolling donut.
“I’m not sure that clear and convincing was the standard used in the 2000 trial. ”
Article, with links to decision and other information: http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger35.html
Quote in article from decision:
“The court specifically finds that these statements are Terri Schiavo
March 30th, 2005 @ 6:39 pm
hermesten:
I understand perfectly your point, but I was speaking only and solely of MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH.
By way of example let me put this scenario:
Suppose you are in a profound crisis of depression and you DESIRE (your word) is to kill yourself and you need help for doing that.
Where do you look first for help? to your mother or to your wife?
suppose you don’t have other choices.
If I were you, and your mother is a normal mom, she will be the last person I will ask for help.
Maybe at this point you are aware that what we are speaking of is biology.
March 30th, 2005 @ 6:46 pm
I wonder if the bunch of you are just missing the whole f$%^ing point. Its not that i don’t think she has a right to kill herself, its that i don’t think her ex-husband has a right to do it. Let’s face it, she has been abandonned by him. He is living with another women whom he has children with. In addition, he has repeatedly denied providing the therapy for her that was agreed upon in the settlement. I question anyone who has something to gain financially from someone else’s death. The ex-husband is scum.
and FYI i’m pro-abortion and pro-assisted suicide.
March 30th, 2005 @ 6:49 pm
There’s not much point in arguing this hypothetical, but for one thing, the Schiavo’s weren’t married 20 years. That would make a difference. I’ve got news for you, Herm, not all husbands (or wives, for that matter) treat their spouses right. It’s not a given. I wouldn’t think much of a person who wouldn’t stand up for his sister, especially if she’s in a vulnerable state.
(Note to self: Don’t waste your time arguing with Rockwell Libertarians.)
March 30th, 2005 @ 7:48 pm
All of these posts have fallen prey to the common logical fallacy of the excluded middle. There are more than the two alternatives for disposition of Terri. John Edward has said in an interview that her soul is still hanging around and that she is very concerned over the anguish, torment and suffering her body is experiencing. I propose a compromise, give ther to John Edward and let him pay for her upkeep.
Another compromise option is to open the morphine drip a bit, a very very large bit, and thereby permanently relieve the concerns of those who think she is suffering.
March 30th, 2005 @ 8:34 pm
Hermesten wrote: “You must be a real pain in the ass BIL. You’re going to substitute and impose YOUR judgement”
Good grief. What kind of brother would stand by while he thought his sister was being killed by her husband? “Sorry, sis, I know you want to live and all, but I don’t want to be a pain in the ass BIL, so adios.” Answer: A pathetic one.
March 30th, 2005 @ 10:30 pm
South Park has spoken, thus it must be done. Terri must die for heaven’s sake.
March 31st, 2005 @ 12:16 am
those that say that terri, somehow, had this coming because of her bulimia deserve a big kick in the butt……..
it is like saying that a rape victim deserved to be raped because she was wearing a mini skirt….
however, even though i would prefer to just leave her how she was, with her feeding tube and all and have her parents (or the state of florida) take care of her, that was not her wish. the court of judge greer, and the numerous appeals and revisions, have decided and confirmed that finding repeatedly.
also, i find that those that say that the money being used for keeping terri “alive” (or whatever she “is”) should be better spent somewhere else are cruel and callous. that is what would have happened, per secula seculorum, if the husband had not decided to come to court. more clearly, if the husband had never gone to court over this, the money would still have been spent on terri’s care. so, those that use this as an argument, are not really making one. they are just showing how insensitive and cruel they are. because they could use the same argument about ANY patient in need of critical medical care that was expensive monetarily, terminal or “hopeless”. money should never be an issue in this cases. only if there was not enough of it.
having said all this, the husband, wheter i agree with the ruling or not, has proved his case to the satisfaction of all the courts that have been involved in this mess. and the laws gave him the right to go to court to make his case.
it would have been much more humane to use other means to allow her death like, say, lethal injection, for sure….and that is the only qualm i have with this situation…..but it is only my illogical side talking…..the doctors say she can’t feel any discomfort…..so i guess she is not in any pain now, or rather, she is incapable of feeling any because of the state of her brain cortex….
it would be nice if the husband would relinquish his rights (and obligations [is this a word? maybe it is my spanglish kicking in...maybe i should say DUTIES instead]) over his wife and hand her over to her parents….but this is only an opinion…..
i say let her die in peace, now.
(of course, if god really really REALLY existed, he would save her, wouldn’t he? or rather, he would not have let her become what she is now…….or get sick, ever…..or get bulimia…..or get married to this horrible horrible man….right? suuuure…..)
March 31st, 2005 @ 1:24 am
hey eva.. instead of kicking my butt, you can KISS. MY. ASS.
here in reality land, there are consequences for our actions, and i fully stand by my justification for having no sympathy whatsoever for this woman. she played a dangerous game and she lost. end of fucking story. sometimes you liberal shills are just as reactionary and feel-good-stupid as your conservative/religious counterparts.
“it is like saying that a rape victim deserved to be raped because she was wearing a mini skirt….”
shame on you, eva. as a free thinking atheist you should know better than to prop up a bald assertion with an anology that simply does not relate to the actual situation.
March 31st, 2005 @ 2:19 am
Actually, Eva is right. Eating disorders aren’t something you choose, they’re a product of society mixed with genetics. Blaming someone rather than helping them is reactionary and stupid. It’s also rational to feel pity for anyone whose experiences you wouldn’t want to share in. I pity Terri, because I’d rather die than be kept alive like that. Until I see any evidence that Terri would have wanted otherwise, letting her body die is fine.
March 31st, 2005 @ 2:53 am
“Good grief. What kind of brother would stand by while he thought his sister was being killed by her husband? ”
You either didn’t read what I wrote, you didn’t understand it, or you’ve deliberately miscontrued it. In no sense did I suggest or imply a scenario where MC was saving his sister from being “killed” by her husband. The hypothetical he introduced was me being married to his sister –which would mean a marriage of over twenty years between two people who love each other. So in essence, he would be imposing his judgement about the wishes of a person that to him would be a relative stranger –someone he has less contact with than people he works with. Anyone who thinks they know their sibling better than the spouse they have shared their life with for over twenty years is seriously deluded and disconnected from reality –you know, sort of like a Rush Limbaugh fan.
The principle you and MC are articulating is that because there are assholes in the world, you, MC, the news media, the general public, and politicans have the right to intervene in private matters between husbands and wives who know and love each other. Essentially you’re saying that the best venue to examine the evidence is TV and the internet, and that ignorant or misinformed strangers and political hucksters should have the final say. The principle, I, and some others here, are articulating, is that the the courts are the proper venue to hear the evidence and judges and juries are the best people to make a final decision when there is a dispute of this nature.
“There’s not much point in arguing this hypothetical, but for one thing, the Schiavo’s weren’t married 20 years.”
You Ditto Heads are sure adept at responding to points and questions that weren’t asked or are irrelevant. The hypothetical YOU introduced was ME –not Schiavo– being married to YOUR sister –not Terri Schindler. Since I don’t know them I can’t answer or respond to questions about the Schiavos or Schindlers.
Unlike you and a good many other people on here who think they know something about the Schiavos or the Schindlers because you caught some sound bite on TV or read an article on the internet, I know not only that I’m not getting all the facts from the news media, but that the facts alone are not enough to rationally judge ANY of the people involved in this case.
“Note to self: Don’t waste your time arguing with Rockwell Libertarians ”
I understand your frustration and I sympathize. The conservative movement used to be led by people like Buckley, Sobran, and Flynn, hell, even George Will, who were thoughtful even when they were full of shit. Now it’s led by a bunch of demagogues and sofa samurais like Coulter and Limbaugh who think hurling playground insults and epithets like smirking teenagers constitutes an argument. I understand: it’s difficult to make an intelligent case for something when you have morphing principles since all you have left is allegiance to your tribe. All you guys sound like Bush talking about Iraq. We’re going into Iraq to get the WMDs. No WMDs. We went into Iraq because of the Al Queda connections. No Al Queda connections. We went into Iraq to give the Iraqis a democracy. Funny stuff I guess, except to the people being killed and having their lives ruined.
In your case: “If you were married to my sister….bla bla bla.” I respond to your hypothetical. You respond by saying the Schiavos weren’t married 20 years; or, “I’m not sure that clear and convincing was the standard used….” and “give me a link.” So, here’s a link and a quote from the ruling saying the court used the clear and convincing standard. Ok, lets forget about that one then, it’s not the answer you wanted to hear.
March 31st, 2005 @ 3:59 am
I went out with a girl that had bulimia. She stuck her finger down her throat and vomited. No gene does this, she willfully and knowingly did this. It is a conscious choice. Before 18, its understandable, the brain is not fully developed, and future consequences may not even be considered. But when we hit that magical age when we can smoke and get drafted, all the decisions we make are ours and the consequences of our actions fall squarely on our shoulders. If she puked her guts out every day, and had a huge heart attack as a result, who’s fault is it? It is very callous, and very cruel, but it is also very REAL. Gawd didn’t make her do it, she did it herself, and now she’s a braindead vegetable. She made the choice when she had the capacity to do so. But the cause of her condition is not the issue here, its what to do with the shell that’s left. stu suggested a wonderful way of looking at it: she must have wanted it this way, as it is most fitting. Morphine would work well, too. Either way, keeping her around is like throwing up a perfectly good meal, a waste.
March 31st, 2005 @ 8:20 am
I’m sure we all agree that Terri was a beautiful woman, and it is sad that we lost her 15 years ago. Death is sad for those who remain, especially atheists. But, by standard modern medical and legal definitions, she has been dead for 15 years, and it is time to let her go.
Sierra said it all in #28. I thought the Bible tells the faithful that, when a woman marries, she shall leave her family and go with her husband to build a new family. “Whither thou goest, I shall go”. “For better or for worse, in sickness or in health, till death do us part”. Well, death done parted them 15 years ago.
Meanwhile, we must insure that our rule of law does NOT become that anyone can freely ignore our courts and interfere in any life/death decision. Lives are NOT terminated, wills are NOT changed, property is NOT distributed based on the emotional responses of “well-informed” citizens who think this is a reality TV show.
When we disdain our judges as fools or charlatans, we are in serious trouble. I expect TRA, as a lawyer, is keenly interested in this aspect, since it squarely matches the theme of this blog, the trivialization of our lives by the influence of religion.
March 31st, 2005 @ 8:27 am
My point is: If you are a divorced because your marriage was terrible wrong, may be your experience teach you to be aware that spouses don’t behave usually as expected.
You make some valid points Simbol. Thanks. Unfortunately this was not one of them.
I DID decide my first spous and I were no longer compatible. I NEVER did or COULD get that same option vis-a-vis my parents. Believe me man, I most definitely would have done so ASAP if ’twere possible.
I love my parents and I love my X. I have minimal contact with the former and none at all with the latter because I they are both harmful to me and their beliefs interefer with their ability to Reason. I miss my one brother more than any of them though because his beliefs, NOT MINE, prevent him from accepting me as I am. He has told me point blank that he KNOWS there is no proof for what he believes, yet he would rather believe it and believe that I am “going to hell” than accept all the good things about me and what I do and think than take the chance that he might burn forever if he accepts reality.
In other words, trusting my parents is not an option. Terry S had bulimia which means, by all studies of that disease, that she didn’t particularly trust her parents either. I have NO IDEA how well she trusted her husband so must go by the FACTS.
Honestly, I would understand if dude gave it up and let her nutters, er, parents have control since THAT is what they want. I admire him for not doing so and really wouldn’t care which way it goes (except for the rediculous amount of $$$ its costing to keep a corpse animated…) if he, who has the Legal Responsibility, didn’t care either.
March 31st, 2005 @ 8:51 am
given the conflicting testimony and the seeming credibility of her parents and friends,
I honestly haven’t noticed that these people have much credibility. They have an emotional involvement which lends absolutely nothing to their credibility.
Their daughter was bulimic, which detracts from their credibility. It DOES NOT make them bad people. Bulimia is associated with poor self-worth or an inaccurate appraisal of one’s own value. It happens for many reasons to many people.
Listen, I LOVE my emotions. They are wonderful and I embrace them for the most part. LOL! Even the negative ones because they tell me something about myself. They NEVER tell me what to do though. They DO often tell me that I need to do something though. It is up to my intellect to determine what that something is.
Otherwise I’d still be beggin’ the Ogre of Heaven for forgiveness for my miserable pathetic existence. Since I am neither miserable (in general!) nor pathetic (for the most part ;} ) I am quite “happy” that I’ve chosen to use intellect instead of emotion for decision making. Usually. [sigh] As I’ve said before, I AM occasionally a poopy-head, especially in regards to my emotional reactions to Finances and Math. Since I’ve gotten better with these issues and am emotionally AND intellectually attached to continuing aptitude, I conclude that I will get better still.
March 31st, 2005 @ 9:33 am
From the wikipedia article on bulemia:
From the International Eating Disorders Centre:
Claiming bulimia is a conscious choice is an ignorant assertion. We are not in control of our own brains, beyond a surface level. I know; I’ve suffered from depression, and seen people close to me suffer from depression. This stuff is no joke.
March 31st, 2005 @ 9:43 am
Claiming bulimia is a conscious choice is an ignorant assertion.
I hope you don’t think I was doing such. My apologies if I was less than clear in that regard. Your supplied definitions fit my understanding of those issues as well.
March 31st, 2005 @ 10:03 am
Michael C, where are you to acknowledge that hermesten gave you exactly what you wanted in post #53, and will you now admit that there is no reason to question the courts’ rulings (other than the hypothetical) and that the process as it happened needs to be respected?
March 31st, 2005 @ 10:25 am
In light of the ongoing Terri Schiavo melodrama, I
March 31st, 2005 @ 10:57 am
Simbol: “Suppose you are in a profound crisis of depression and you DESIRE (your word) is to kill yourself and you need help for doing that.”
I misinterpreted this question the first time I read it. I do see what you’re getting at, but I think the problem with this formulation is that both my mother AND my wife know what derpression is and would do everything in their power to prevent me from killing myself, though to be honest about it, I think my wife would be the most enegetic in trying to stop me for a number of reasons, such as how our lifes are interconnected and the fact the she knows me as my mother cannot possibly know me.
What if I had a terminal debilitating condition instead, wanted to kill myself, and needed help to do it? In the first place, I love my wife too much to ever ask her to do such a thing. It is also my duty as her husband to protect her so I would suffer quietly because the world is full of people like MC, and if she did help me to die, they would be trashing her on TV and on the internet, the politicians would be using our situation to serve their own political agendas, and she’d end up being prosecuted for murder. Sadly, this hypocritical society has closed the assisted suicide option for people who care about anyone they could ask to do it, so unless I was able to hire a hitman or do it myself, I’d just have to suffer.
Now, given the consequences of such an act, who is most likely to do it? Probably my wife, but because she LOVES ME MORE than my mother, not because she loves me less. The person doing such a thing is making a sacrifice, and it is the person who loves and cares about you the most who is most likely to make the sacrifice.
March 31st, 2005 @ 11:02 am
#68 Viole said: “Claiming bulimia is a conscious choice is an ignorant assertion. We are not in control of our own brains, beyond a surface level. I know; I’ve suffered from depression, and seen people close to me suffer from depression. This stuff is no joke.”
I know exactly what bulimia is and how it works. You use your depression as an example of how we do not control our brains. That’s what most people think. I, too, have suffered from depression. I have found, though, after much book-reading and psychology-class-taking, that the thoughts that we have determine how we feel. You should look into cognitive therapy, it grows out of that concept.
So in both bulimia and depression, it IS the conscious choice of the individual. We CHOOSE how we feel, based on our thoughts and perceptions. Why do you think the jeebus freaks are happy all the time? They think gawd and jeebus love them, and that’s reason enough to be happy. That’s the power of their “faith” in a non-reality.
Depression and many other pyschological problems are caused by the negative and degrading thoughts we have. If Terri felt that shitty about her body enough to barf her guts out all the time, she must have thought very lowly of herself. True, public opinion shapes this, but it is still our CHOICE to ACCEPT the publics’ opinion. We are the sole operators and caretakers of our minds (ha! or so we think). We choose how we think, how we act, how we relate to the world, and ultimately how we feel.
Bulimia is self-loathing. I think if Terri was CONSCIOUS of her condition at present, she would feel miserable. I don’t think anyone likes the idea of living out their remaining years as a drooling vegetable. While I believe it is humane to let her shell shut down, I do have to pin the cause of the condition on her conscious negative thoughts.
March 31st, 2005 @ 11:17 am
CNN reported that Terri just died. She was allowed to die according to her wishes, albeit 15 years later. My condolences to her husband, and I applaud his strength.
March 31st, 2005 @ 11:33 am
“Why do you think the jeebus freaks are happy all the time? They think gawd and jeebus love them, and that’s reason enough to be happy.”
You mean like that jeebus freak, Andrea Yates? Sounds like kind of perpetual motion philosophy, since we can explain away people like Andrea by saying she stopped “believing” or didn’t believe enough. In fact, this notion sounds pretty religious to me. Essentially you’re saying, just believe, and all will be well, but instead of believing in God, believe in the power of positive thinking.
Personally, I think this is rubbish. In the first place, everything that goes on in your brain, including thinking, is a product of chemical activity. Though I generally agree with Hamlet, that “there is nothing under Heaven but thinking makes it so,” I also recoginize what kind of thinking he’s talking about when he follows up with: “I could be bounded by a nutshell and count myself the King of Infinite Space.” (my quoting is probably off, but gets the sense of it) Yes, you can be bounded by a nutshell and count yourself the King of Infinite space, and we call that self-delusion. If one of my children was to be murdered I wouldn’t be depressed because I failed to think of it in a positive light, but the reverse. My “feelings” would come first and my “thoughts” later, driven by my feelings. The only way I could “think” myself out of such a depression is by extreme self-delusion, bordering on, if not deeply traveling into, insanity.
March 31st, 2005 @ 11:40 am
Surely Raving Atheist can’t ignore the political context of the Schiavo fight?!? It’s another sledgehammer to crack the constitutionally-enshrined separation of church and state in the US. Even if you consider that it’s a “judicial murder” (and that means you must ignore A LOT of facts about the case), if you throw your weight behind the campaign, you are helping the hopeful theocrats… for shame!
March 31st, 2005 @ 11:49 am
You Ditto Heads are sure adept at responding to points and questions that weren’t asked or are irrelevant. The hypothetical YOU introduced was ME –not Schiavo– being married to YOUR sister –not Terri Schindler. Since I don’t know them I can’t answer or respond to questions about the Schiavos or Schindlers.
Are you for real? We were discussing the Schiavos! How the hell would I know how long you’ve been married to your wife. This is exactly why I thought it would be a waste of time arguing this hypothetical with you. You’re not being rational. Intentionally, I believe. Bottom line: If I thought you were harming my sister, I’d kick your ass. I’d expect the same from my (future) in laws. By the way, I never listen to talk radio.
I’m not going to waste much more of my time arguing with you because, as most Rockwell Libs, you operate on the fringes of reasoned debate, with ridiculous theories (need I supply some of Lew’s?) about the “fascist” fed’ral gubmint.
All you guys sound like Bush talking about Iraq. We’re going into Iraq to get the WMDs. No WMDs. We went into Iraq because of the Al Queda connections. No Al Queda connections. We went into Iraq to give the Iraqis a democracy. Funny stuff I guess…
Check out the 2003 State of the Union address. Maybe check out the Iraq War Resolution passed by Congress. You’ll find that all those reasons (and more) were given before hand and at great length. And actually, the 9/11 Commission found that there was an Iraq connection with al Qaeda. Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton:
…here’s a link and a quote from the ruling saying the court used the clear and convincing standard. Ok, lets forget about that one then, it’s not the answer you wanted to hear.
I said I wasn’t sure that was the standard used. I appreciate the pointer, but it doesn’t change my mind about what I think was a wrong decision. (Does that answer your question, Paul?) I suppose you guys have never disagreed with a court’s ruling? Ever?
I honestly haven’t noticed that these people have much credibility. They have an emotional involvement which lends absolutely nothing to their credibility.
Michael Schiavo’s supporters say he has emotional involvment, and that is the reason he has been fighting so hard. Does that hurt his credibility any less?
March 31st, 2005 @ 12:23 pm
Michael C.-
I have to say that even though I disagree with you, I enjoy having you in this discussion because you’re willing to back up your opinions with logical arguments. I don’t know if you are an atheist, but I’m wondering if you’re aware why the course of events in the Schiavo case may be very troubling for atheists.
For better or worse, the structure of the U.S. legal system is such that courts have the final say on matters of legal dispute. There are a number of checks and balances on the courts. Parties have the right to appeal court decisions, and in criminal cases, the executive branch has the power to pardon convicts. But for the most part, legal disputes – child custody cases, contract disputes, medical malpractice, criminal cases – are decided by the court based on the laws passed by the other branches of government. The foundation for this faith in the judicial system is that the judge and/or jury will act impartially and without prejudice according to the dictates of the law, and if they act otherwise, then the decision can be appealed. But there is no such presumption and no such checks on the other branches of government. That is, should Congress pass a law that you think is unfair, there is no structure in place for you to “appeal” the law (unless it is in some way unConstitional). When the President decides to go to war, there is little that can be done by the public to change that decision. So, in many ways, the judiciary is our (the public’s) advocate when we believe others have infringed on our rights.
So, for atheists, to the extent that the government recognizes that there may be people who do not believe in God and that such people are entitled to any kind of rights, we have looked to the courts to uphold those rights. Sometimes the courts have failed, but many times they have sided with us, even if that was the unpopular stance to take. But if the precedent is now set that Congress can step in any time courts make a decision with which they don’t agree, then there is little reason to believe that whatever minor victories atheists have had in the judicial system can stand up. Atheists will always lose the popularity test in Congress.
That’s why I’m troubled by what’s happened. Of course, the self-righteous nauseating rhetoric coming from many tubers, from Tom Delay to Randall Terry to Jesse Jackson, hasn’t endeared them to me either. But for the most part, what I really don’t like is the feeling that now any unpopular court decision can be up for Congressional review.
March 31st, 2005 @ 12:50 pm
MC: “If you were married to my sister and wanted to have her put down against what I thought were her genuine wishes, you’d be the one who had best watch out!”
MC: “Are you for real? We were discussing the Schiavos!”
Nice try.
“I’m not going to waste much more of my time arguing with you because, as most Rockwell Libs…..”
Ha ha ha. How much more, since apparently you have time to waste? So if I point you to an article on by the 700 Club I’m a Pat Robertson fanatic? You can call me a Rockwell Lib 1,000 times and it won’t be any more true than it was the first time. For one thing, I’m an atheist and Lew is a Catholic. For another thing, Lew, and most of the rest of the people on his site are creationists, or at least anti-evolutionists. For another, I have more in common with Alexander Cockburn, or Sam Smith, than I do with Lew, not to mention Matt Tabbi or Chris Floyd. But I understand why a guy whose first post is to call someone with a different opinion an “idiot” needs to be so simple-minded. You can’t defend your tribe with reason or logic, and your “principles” have to morph to accomodate the depravities of your current Chief. Nuance or subtlety would make this a difficult task. It’s a lot easier to do when you can dismiss someone as a commie, a liberal, a socialist, a femi-Nazi, a enviornmentalist wacko, an animal rights nut, or a “Lew Rockwell Lib.”
“And actually, the 9/11 Commission found that there was an Iraq connection with al Qaeda. Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton.”
You’re a funny guy. You mine quotes like a Bible Beater. From the Cincinnatti Post:
“The final report of the Sept. 11 commission is important on several fronts, not least of them its unflinching conclusion that the United States had no proof of a connection between Saddam Hussein, al-Qaida and the 9-11 terrorist attacks when President Bush decided to attack Iraq.
The commission report does say there was at least one meeting and perhaps more between Osama bin Laden and an Iraqi official in Sudan in the 1990s. But, it concluded, Iraq declined or ignored a request by bin Laden for assistance. ”
Yeah, there were “connections.” On the basis of this kind of connection we can justify invading any country in the world. You know, I’m surprised the Brits haven’t attaked us yet, since there are “connections” between the US and the IRA. In fact, a good deal of their financing comes from the US, and we have harbored IRA terrorists.
And hmmmmm. Now we do have proof of definite connections between Pakistan and bin Laden, and the Pakistanis had advisors with the Taliban. In fact, we keep hearing ole’ Bin may be hiding out in Pakistan. Now I wonder why we haven’t invaded Pakistan? Mmmmmmm. Could it be because they actually do have WMDs?
But what can I say MC, you’re a very funny guy.
March 31st, 2005 @ 1:48 pm
I’m surprised the Brits haven’t attaked us yet, since there are “connections” between the US and the IRA.
Yah right! Just let ‘em try it! We’d kick their asses back to Stone Age! (That wouldn’t make us “Right” though would it???) ;-}
I like that example Herm. All the evidence shows no relevant connection between al Qaeda and Saddam. There aren’t even any unanswered question on the issue. There is a much better chance that a CIA agent on the grassy knoll finished off JFK than there is of Saddam’s having subsidized bin Laden. I wouldn’t bet on the former but I’d bet the farm on the latter being bunk.
The Iraq war is about Oil and W-nut’s involvement in the Schiavo case is about religion. That isn’t a judgement as to the merits of either one. Its just a fact. What we think about those facts is what we can meaningfully debate.
March 31st, 2005 @ 2:56 pm
I agree that Iraq is about oil –at least in the sense that oil is one of the major factors, though not the only factor. To those of us who can read, and do, it is beyond dispute. The PNAC euphemistically refers to this fact when it speaks to the importance of establishing permanent bases in the Middle East to further American interests (oil), as transcending “the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”
I also agree that the Schiavo case is about religion in the sense that it is being used, primarily by religious forces, as a means of furthering a political agenda that legitimizes State intervention into every aspect of life, and especially those aspects that empower the government to regulate behavior that can be characterized as “immoral” based solely on religious doctrine.
March 31st, 2005 @ 2:57 pm
Friend Hermesten: We desagree, but what the world would be if all of us agree? A very boring world.
Terri’s case seems to be ended, but I want to post a final note.
Some persons ut supra pointed out that since USA is a democracy, intervention of government in family battles must not be accepted. Mookey (#73) said that we choose how to feel based on our thoughts and perceptions.
first, I am very unconfident in democracy (democracy and freedom are not the same and can be in contradiction-remember theocracies supported by most of the people, remember nazi germany, etc). The essence of democracy is the rule of majority and majorities sometimes choose to commit political suicide or commit grooss mistakens. I accept that is also true that nobody have found a less imperfect way than democracy. We have to live with it because the alternatives are worse.
But I can’t agree with Mookie. I am sometinhg like a refugee here, because my country (Venezuela), an old democracy and a very free one, is now a dictatorship, with a dictator elected in an election not rigged. People choose to have a dictator.
Mookie, I cannot help avoid to be depressed, unhappy and sad. Whatever I do I cannot be but depressed seeing my country slid to an authoritarian state like Cuba. No even a ton of prozac can help me.
Watch out you democracy, but most of all, watch out your freedom, because USA is a lighthouse even for iraqies with an ounce of common sense.
March 31st, 2005 @ 3:12 pm
Simbol, I was going to ask where you are from, but you’ve answered the question. I was going to say how much I like the writing of Borges, but then, I guess he’s from Argentina. If only my Spanish was as good as your English.
I agree with you about democracy, though technically, the US is supposed to be a republic with built-in protections from the majority; and there are many here who would like to strip away those protections and make everyone a victim of what is popular.
March 31st, 2005 @ 3:16 pm
TECHNICALLY, the USA is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. The majority rules, but its power is limited by the Constitution. E.g. if the majority wished to establish Christianity as the official religion of the land, it would not succeed because of the limits imposed by the 1st Amendment. Not that it keeps the fundies from trying…
March 31st, 2005 @ 3:18 pm
Herm beat me to it. Oh well.
March 31st, 2005 @ 3:39 pm
As a follow-up to my post about the worrying effects of legislators trying to invalidate unpopular judicial decisions, I should mention that there’s going to be a conference at the beginning of April entitled “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith”. Featured speakers include Tom DeLay, Roy Moore and Phyllis Schlafly. Topics include: Removal of Terri Schiavo’s Feeding Tube, Homosexual Marriage, Taking God Out of Pledge of Allegiance, Bans on 10 Commandments Monuments, Abortion on Demand and Prohibiting School Prayer. Here’s an article about how the religious conservative side of the culture wars is trying to take over the judiciary.
March 31st, 2005 @ 4:01 pm
To say that yours is a republic and not a democracy is a technicality. which is the source of power?
Don’t forget that constitutions can be changed. And deeply.
And, Hermesten, Borges was born in Argentina, but we feel that he belongs to all of us who loves the beautiful spanish language.
By the way, Borges mastered very well english, even the ancient english, and wrote some memorable pages in this language. He called my attention on english, because he said in some essay whose name I don’t remember now, that english is the perfect language for literarure. He didn’t explain it, but maybe he was right. After all, english is also a melting pot where spanish, trully, is a dialect of Latin. But Latin is wonderful and is like Terri: she was beautiful but now is dead.
So, happy you all who master english.
Borges also was a man who fought Peron’s dictatorship and wrote volterians essays on freedom and against religious fanaticism.
March 31st, 2005 @ 4:04 pm
Freddy, have you read that many of these 10 Commandments Mounments got where they are courtesy of Cecil B. DeMille as a Hollywood promotion of his movie, The Ten Commandments? Oh, the irony.
March 31st, 2005 @ 4:12 pm
“Borges also was a man who fought Peron’s dictatorship and wrote volterians essays on freedom and against religious fanaticism.”
That is of course one of the reaons I like him as a man. His fiction stands on its own merits, and may be the greatest imaginative literature ever produced, but it’s a greater pleasure to read him knowning he is a man of principle.
March 31st, 2005 @ 4:33 pm
#75 “Personally, I think this is rubbish. In the first place, everything that goes on in your brain, including thinking, is a product of chemical activity.”
Chemical? yes. Rubbish? no. Your brain has to figure out something is a certain way before the emotional juices start working. If someone is sneaking up behind you to cause you harm, and you can’t tell, you will not have an emotional response, in this case, fear. But let’s say you hear a sound, or you see their reflection off a shiny surface. Then you have something to worry about, and your brain starts releasing chemicals. Or, suppose you did not take them as a threat. Then the chemicals don’t come into play. Its the meaning and the importance we attach to things that decide the way we feel.
I don’t care if you don’t believe in it. It is ultimately your choice whether you do or not. Just because you don’t doesn’t mean its not true, or that it doesn’t work. I’ve tried it on myself, and I think it works very well, thank you very much. Sure beats the anti-depressant meds.
The positive thinking bit is cliched, but that’s not the idea in its entirety. Check out “What the Bleep Do We Know”, an interesting movie that talks about this, and _The Feeling Good Handbook_ by David Burns. In it, Dr Burns talks about how he’s dealt with some of his patients, and discusses how the theory works and all the finer points. The movie is good and very informative, the book is more specific to cognitive therapy, so may be too dense for quick perusal.
Feel good or not; if its your choice, why not choose to feel good?
March 31st, 2005 @ 4:56 pm
Mookie, I promise you I will consult Dr. Pangloss.
March 31st, 2005 @ 5:08 pm
Mookie, I thought you were going to refer me to Thomas Szasz (a real psychiatrist who wrote “The Myth of Mental Illness as more or less takes the same position that you do) and you suggest “What the Bleep Do We Know?” You’ve been taken in by a hoax. From the Roger Ebert review site:
“While the film “What the #$*! Do We Know!?” parades itself as a tell-all about quantum physics, it turns out that it’s actually a 111-minute infomercial for … that’s right, the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. In fact, the three filmmakers, [William] Arntz, [Betsy] Chasse and [Mark] Vicente, are all devotees of Ramtha.
There’s little to no accurate science in the film, and, as a physicist pointed out recently in your Answer Man column, the individuals who are quoted are pretty far from qualified experts on the field of quantum mechanics. Case in point: One of the persons expounding on causality and quantum physics (Dispenza) is a chiropractor. The film’s sole purpose appears to be to promote the ideology of the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. A quick browse through their Web site will clearly demonstrate that the film’s pseudoscientific nonsense comes straight from the teachings of the RSE.”
I should also point out that just because a certain technique works for you doesn’t mean it will work for someone else. I’ve no doubt that this technique works better for you than anti-depressants. In the first place, you may not actually be clinically depressed, and in the second place, even if you are, no medication works for everyone, and even if you find one that does the side effects may be intolerable. How many have you tried?
March 31st, 2005 @ 6:13 pm
Michael C wrote: “I said I wasn’t sure that was the standard used. I appreciate the pointer, but it doesn’t change my mind about what I think was a wrong decision. (Does that answer your question, Paul?) I suppose you guys have never disagreed with a court’s ruling? Ever?”
But (from http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger35.html):
The [court] opinion also pointed out: “The court has had the opportunity to hear the witnesses, observe their demeanor, hear inflections, note pregnant pauses, and in all manners assess credibility above and beyond the spoken or typed word.”
There are people who now say,
March 31st, 2005 @ 6:36 pm
OMFG 93 comments!! Im not even gonna attempt to read all these. Sheeeeeeeit people, 93 comments about Terri and shes already dead??? Christ!!!
March 31st, 2005 @ 6:58 pm
I see your point, Freddy, and I certainly appreciate the importance of the Establishment Clause in the 1st Am. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I am a lawyer (patent) and understand the structure and purpose of the legal system. I’m also not an atheist, but you’ll notice that I’ve never once mentioned religion in any of my arguments in this thread or any other here.
That is, should Congress pass a law that you think is unfair, there is no structure in place for you to “appeal” the law (unless it is in some way unConstitional). … [I]n many ways, the judiciary is our (the public’s) advocate when we believe others have infringed on our rights.
Well, you can vote politicians out of office and vote in ones that agree with you, an option not available with many judges.
[I]f the precedent is now set that Congress can step in any time courts make a decision with which they don’t agree, then there is little reason to believe that whatever minor victories atheists have had in the judicial system can stand up.
There are checks on the legislature, as you mentioned: State and US Constitutions. As you know, the judiciary is tasked with interpreting the law, not making it. You refer to the Schiavo intervention as a “Congressional review” of judicial decisions, but I don’t see it that way. When Congress changes the law, as is its right, judges must abide. Unless, of course, a supportable determination is made that the law is unconstitutional. The USSC is the final arbitrator of that question and I’m very happy for that. But as much as you and I may not like many laws — and there are many that I think are none of the government’s business, if not unconstitutional (gun control, eminent domain, etc.) — the legislative branch is fulfilling the role given to it by the framers, and they are directly accountable to the public.
Atheists will always lose the popularity test in Congress.
Hard to disagree with that. Of course, many Christians similarly complain that they always lose the popularity test in today’s courts (with rulings that bend Constitutional meaning). It’s a culture war, all right, and we can only hope that our judicial system is mindful of it’s role in upholding the law and protecting the Constitutional rights of all Americans without resorting to judicial fiat.
Herm:
You can call me a Rockwell Lib 1,000 times and it won’t be any more true than it was the first time.
Ok, I took a leap based on the number of times you referred me to his writings. For the record, you can stop calling me a slavish Bush worshiper, Bible Thumper, Ann Coulter fan and a Rush Limbaugh ditto head, as I’m none of those things either.
I kind of lost interest in the rest of your rambling, as you didn’t support your allegation that I misrepresented or selectively quoted the 9/11 Commission. Connections? Yes. Evidence of collaboration on US attacks? No. That’s what I said.
March 31st, 2005 @ 7:02 pm
Sure, we all have the right to think any court ruling or jury verdict is wrong (OJ, anyone?), but we must respect those decisions if only because the process must be respected.
I don’t disagree, Paul. As I said above, I’m not making a call for the barricades.
March 31st, 2005 @ 7:59 pm
ARRRGHHHHHHHHH
I have a headache from reading these posts as (most of) you argue past one another. Based on observations I have made over the past week I think that the way a person sees this issue is a direct reflection on their own fears as to how they would be treated if they were no longer able to make the decision for themselves and a fear of any pain that might be experienced upon dying. I trust my spouse to make the right decision and I have made clear to my parents that they have no real say in the matter, for I do not trust them as I am their child. After 8 years, I know what kind of man my spouse is and I know he would not shrink from doing what I want, no matter how painful to him.
As to the case at hand, someone said that everyone is entitled to their own OPINION, but not to their own FACTS. The facts have shown that Terri is gone. Just because someone disagrees does not make it false. Also, the court found that Terri did not want to live this way. The parents never said she would want to be kept “alive”, they testified that she never mentioned it to them and that they didn’t think it would be what she wants because she is catholic. The husband had witnesses and to impugne them simply because they are from his side of the family is disgusting. I hardly think that they all got together and lied to the court just so the plug could be pulled. That is pure bullshit.
I also think that the husband was a study in class in how he handled the whole circus. If I were he, I’d be calling my lawyer in a week or so and start suing for defamation of character, staring with the Schindlers and going all the way through the protesters and the commentators on television. He is not a public figure so there is really no excuse for it.
March 31st, 2005 @ 8:36 pm
Stop the presses! It finally happened. Two people who initially disagreed on an Internet forum wound up agreeing. Surely the Rapture can’t be far behind.
Michael C., I very much appreciate the understanding we came to, as small as it is. If you frame your disagreement with the court in the Shaivo case according to my post #93, then I’m right with you.
April 1st, 2005 @ 4:50 am
Mr Shaivo should have NEVER allowed the feeding tube from the beginning …. and then decide later to take it away!
April 1st, 2005 @ 4:59 am
Why do all of you think he should still be considered her decision maker when he has a new relationship with a new women!? C’mon- if she were able to communicate with him she would have asked for a divorce … wouldn’t you? Yea , it gets lonely out there when your wife is in a hospital suffering from brain damage. But what was the motivation behind keeping her alive in the beginning? Was it hope…. was it possibilities that life would go back to normal…and how in the world could you sit by and just simply keep food from someone!
I think Mr Shaivo has a long hard life ahead of him and pray that God gives him the grace he will need.
Ok time for my medical treatment- breakfast….
April 1st, 2005 @ 8:12 am
yes, sweety…….take all your meds…….
April 1st, 2005 @ 10:25 am
“I kind of lost interest in the rest of your rambling, as you didn’t support your allegation that I misrepresented or selectively quoted the 9/11 Commission.”
Yes, I incorrectly used the term “quote mining.” Your quotation did not convey a different meaning from that intended by the document as a whole. It’s the document itself that is the problem. Funny how all the government self-investigations always discover that while there was a minor mistake here and there, by and large, the government didn’t do anything wrong. Why, it’s almost forumlaic and predictable. It’s funny how you’re a lawyer, and take the position that you’re a better judge of evidence than the court based on what you’ve read in the media, when the court is bound by rules of evidence and testimony given under oath, but you take a political document at face value. However, the real point in my remarks about the “connections,” obscured by my incorrect allegation of selective quotation, is that the term “connections” is used as a weasel word to imply a relationship that didn’t exist. During the previous administration, people like you used to call such abuse of the language “Clintonesque.”
“Well, you can vote politicians out of office and vote in ones that agree with you, an option not available with many judges.”
Is this what they teach you in lawyer school, or did you learn this in high school civics? This might be true, to some extent, in countries like Britain, with a parlimentary system, but certainly isn’t true in this country. On rare occassions, you might actually get to vote for a politician who “agrees with you,” but it’s extremely rare that this translates into putting them in office. In the recent presidential election between tweedle-dumb and tweelde-dumber, Bush and Bush-lite, there were several other candidates for president, none of whom had any chance whatsoever of being elected. I talked to countless people who didn’t like either of the two Bushes, but voted for one of them anyway, because the candidate who most agreed with them had no chance of being elected.
“I’m also not an atheist, but you’ll notice that I’ve never once mentioned religion in any of my arguments in this thread or any other here.”
As I suspected by the fact that you seem to studiously avoid any reference to religion. Most of us here probably appreciate the fact that whatever argument you make is not based on some personal interpretation of God’s intentions or some statement in the Bible. ” “The Bible says so” is a non-starter here.
“the legislative branch is fulfilling the role given to it by the framers, and they are directly accountable to the public.”
Wow, two jokes in one. Turning over your war making powers to the president, and law-making to regulatory agencies and executive orders is hardly fulfilling the role given by the framers. And my dictionary defines “directly” by words like: “Without anyone or anything intervening: directly responsible”; “Exactly or totally: “At once; instantly.” Please tell us just how congess is any way “directly accountable” to anyone. The simple mechanics of our political system makes this absolute and utter nonense. You sound like you live in the same kind of political fantasy world as the many libertarians who live in an economic fantasy world.
April 1st, 2005 @ 11:17 am
It’s funny how you’re a lawyer, and take the position that you’re a better judge of evidence than the court based on what you’ve read in the media, when the court is bound by rules of evidence and testimony given under oath, but you take a political document at face value.
By your standard, Herm, no one could ever disagree with a judge’s ruling. While it’s true that I haven’t read every shred of evidence that Judge Greer heard, I have read quite a bit of the official record, plus some things that Judge Greer would not admit, rightly or wrongly. We’ve been over this ground so many times, though, that maybe we should just agree to disagree. I don’t take political documents at face value, by the way.
Is this what they teach you in lawyer school [that we vote politicians in and out of office], or did you learn this in high school civics? This might be true, to some extent, in countries like Britain, with a parlimentary system, but certainly isn’t true in this country. On rare occassions, you might actually get to vote for a politician who “agrees with you,” but it’s extremely rare that this translates into putting them in office.
That politicians with whom you most agree lack enough public support to get elected is not an indictment of the democratic system, but rather the natural result of it.
I talked to countless people who didn’t like either of the two Bushes, but voted for one of them anyway, because the candidate who most agreed with them had no chance of being elected.
If I only voted for someone I agreed with on every issue, I’d be voting for myself in every election.
Please tell us just how congess is any way “directly accountable” to anyone.
They’re held accountable every time they come up for reelection. Do you have a better idea for representative government? Then run for office and propose a Constitutional amendment.
April 1st, 2005 @ 12:23 pm
“Do you have a better idea for representative government?”
For a lawyer, you seem to have a very difficult time focusing –or you just don’t have an answer so you prefer to go off on a tangent. The question at hand, the one you selected for quotation in your response, is not which form of government is best, but whether or not the US Congress can be said to be “directly accountable” to anyone. Your response is that I should run for office. Don’t they teach logic in law school anymore?
“That politicians with whom you most agree lack enough public support to get elected is not an indictment of the democratic system, but rather the natural result of it.”
You must be a politician because you’ve used just about every technique in the political playbook. Here we have a half-truth used for misrepresentation rolled into a glib comment on the wonders of democracy. It’s a half-truth because because you’ve particularized my more general comments about political representation –but it’s sort of funny because at the same time you correctly use “most agree” and then in your very next remark you suggest that my voting criteria is to seek agreement on EVERY issue. On top of all this, and in spite of my comparison to a parliamentary system, you transform my comments about the particular machinery of government in the US to some kind of general criticism about representative government in general.
“Is this what they teach you in lawyer school [that we vote politicians in and out of office]..”
Do they also not teach lawyers English anymore, and the proper methods of attribution? Or is there some kind of new class about how to misrepresent your opposition (it would seem so, as this is right out of the politicians playbook)? This citation completely misrepresents what I actually said, reducing my comment to nothing more than a silly remark, since what I was actually contesting was your assertion that we can “vote-in” politicians who we agree with, not that there is a working process that exchanges one politician for another.
“If I only voted for someone I agreed with on every issue, I’d be voting for myself in every election.”
Have you run for office by any chance? Because again, like most of your responses, this is a variation of what the consultants tell politicians: don’t answer the question that was asked, answer the question you wish was asked. I have to give you credit on this one; it’s not like you’re making something up or mischaracterizing what I said, you provide the quote where I said “the candidate who most agreed with them” and then you say: “If I only voted for someone I agreed with on EVERY issue…..”
Do you ever actually go to trial about anything? I’m just wondering if you try this kind of stuff in court and it actually works on judges, or if it’s just intended for the jury?
April 1st, 2005 @ 12:35 pm
Michael C is an idiot is she thinks that the legislature is directly accountable to the people.
Oops, I sound like an asshole. And you did apologize to Herm for saying that to me. So I’ll start over.
In a two party system, no one is really accountable. Accountability requires a viable alternative, and let me ask you this, Michael; do you think most Americans would cross party lines to unseat someone they disliked? I don’t; most of them won’t even risk voting for an alternative on their own side, witness the Democratic venom against Nader.
The party primaries should help though, right? Well, not really. Did Bush have any real opponents in the last primary? Kerry did, but that’s not relevant; he was the outside opposition to the status quo.
Numerous improvements to the current electoral system have been offered. The most popular is Instant Runoff, allowing people to vote for more than one person, in ranked order.
There’s also the possibility of allowing candidates to run in multiple parties. They appear on the ballot more than once, so that the candidate knows where her electoral support comes from, allowing a sort of third party while still having two candidates. I don’t really like this one.
Also, there’s proportional representation, rather than winner takes all. Wouldn’t that provide a more honest assessment of what American’s want, while providing stronger protection of minorities?
There are plenty of better systems, my friend.
April 1st, 2005 @ 1:04 pm
April 1st, 2005 @ 1:24 pm
The question at hand, the one you selected for quotation in your response, is not which form of government is best, but whether or not the US Congress can be said to be “directly accountable” to anyone. Your response is that I should run for office.
No, my full response included that they are directly accountable to the public through elections. How is that not directly accountable? What intermediary is there between the voters and their elected representatives?
[Y]ou’ve particularized my more general comments about political representation –but it’s sort of funny because at the same time you correctly use “most agree” and then in your very next remark you suggest that my voting criteria is to seek agreement on EVERY issue.
No, I didn’t. That “next remark” was merely in regard to the people you’ve talked with who didn’t like their options.
[W]hat I was actually contesting was your assertion that we can “vote-in” politicians who we agree with, not that there is a working process that exchanges one politician for another.
My use of brackets clearly identified those words as my own, and I don’t see how they misrepresented you. Unless, perhaps, you’re complaining that I should have wrote, “that we can vote politicians in and out of office.” Fine, but I thought it was obvious that was what I meant.
…don’t answer the question that was asked, answer the question you wish was asked.
Well, you weren’t asking a question there. I was just making an observation. I didn’t know it would ruffle your feathers so badly.
Do you ever actually go to trial about anything? I’m just wondering if you try this kind of stuff in court and it actually works on judges, or if it’s just intended for the jury?
You seem pretty hung up on the lawyer theme. I’m not a trial lawyer, I’m a patent attorney. The few times I’ve appeared in court have been on preliminary matters, so I don’t often get to “try” much of anything.
Michael C is an idiot is she thinks that the legislature is directly accountable to the people. Oops, I sound like an asshole. And you did apologize to Herm for saying that to me. So I’ll start over.
Well, you’ll remember that I was responding to your insults directed toward another commenter (Omni, I think), so you can climb down from the high horse, Viole.
[D]o you think most Americans would cross party lines to unseat someone they disliked?
I don’t know if most would, but some certainly do and that has changed the outcomes of many past elections. In the last election, for instance, Bush picked up a lot of Democrats because those voters didn’t trust Kerry on national security. But that was to reseat someone, rather than unseat someone.
Did Bush have any real opponents in the last primary?
Of course not. He was the incumbant. That’s not unusual.
Numerous improvements to the current electoral system have been offered.
I’m not categorically opposed to considering any of them, though I can’t say I’ve been convinced that any are good enough to want to amend the Constitution either.
The most popular is Instant Runoff, allowing people to vote for more than one person, in ranked order.
You mean like how they do it in France? (Calm down, my Francophile friends, I’m only having fun.)
Also, there’s proportional representation, rather than winner takes all.
There are very good reasons to keep the electoral college in place. If you want to discuss them, we can.
April 1st, 2005 @ 2:50 pm
No, Michael, I think it’s pretty clear you were responding to my opinions, not anything I said to Omni. Sure, I called Omni a twit, but followed up with with actually support for my opinions. You were just insulting. In any case, if I wish to respond to insult with insult, that is clearly my right.
You say that ‘Of course [Bush didn't have any primary opponents]. He was the incumbent.’ My point is that he had no opposition on what is commonly called the ‘right wing’. No economic conservatives, or secularists, just him. That’s the trouble. You vote for one guy who doesn’t support your views, or you vote for another, because all voting for a third party will do is make a largely ignored statement.
I’m not particularly excited about amending the constitution on voting rights, either. I be fine if congress would take the issue up and have a reasoned debate before doing something, but what’s the chance of that? Something needs to be changed, so let’s choose a plan and go.
Since I’ve probably heard all the arguments for keeping the electoral college, and rejected them, I won’t even bother to ask about them.
April 1st, 2005 @ 3:27 pm
[I]f I wish to respond to insult with insult, that is clearly my right.
Certainly. Let’s consider it bygones.
You say that ‘Of course [Bush didn't have any primary opponents]. He was the incumbent.’ My point is that he had no opposition on what is commonly called the ‘right wing’. No economic conservatives, or secularists, just him. That’s the trouble. You vote for one guy who doesn’t support your views, or you vote for another, because all voting for a third party will do is make a largely ignored statement.
But get enough people to agree with you and it won’t be an ignored statement (look at what happened to Bush 41 in ‘92). And how is this any different when a Democrat is the incumbent, if that’s what you’ve implied above? A third party will emerge when they have a platform that appeals to a sufficient number of Americans. So far they’ve largely been fringe movements (Green Party, Independent Party, etc.) and rejected as viable alternatives. These things evolve over time and old parties fade to make way for new ones (i.e. the Whigs).
I’m not particularly excited about amending the constitution on voting rights, either. I be fine if congress would take the issue up and have a reasoned debate before doing something, but what’s the chance of that?
Slim, and I’m not opposed to that debate.
Since I’ve probably heard all the arguments for keeping the electoral college, and rejected them, I won’t even bother to ask about them.
Ok, but the framers — much smarter men than we now have running things — found them compelling enough to put it in the Constitution.
April 1st, 2005 @ 4:42 pm
“Ok, but the framers — much smarter men than we now have running things — found them compelling enough to put it in the Constitution.”
I guess that depends on who you think is “running things.” Your’s is sort of an obvious statement if you think people like Bush and Kerry and De Lay are “running things” –besides their mouths that is. But to belabor the obvious, if you think Bush is running anything (besides his mouth –unless you want to add the words “away from” in between running and things)…..well, hell, the idea of that is either funny, or scary, or both. If you hope, as I do, that the people “running things” are people like Carl Rove, Richard Pearle, Wolfowitz, and Rummy, well, not only can you breath a sigh of relief, since you don’t have to worry about their integrity AND their sanity, I don’t think you can be so certain that the framers are “much smarter” than the men (was going to add, “and women,” but I can only think of Rice in this context, and she even makes Bush look smart) who are currently running things. I think what you can be sure of is that the integrity of even the most depraved “framer” makes the current crowd look like a bunch of used car salesmen. Our problem today isn’t a lack of intelligence, it’s a lack of honesty and decency.
“No, my full response included that they are directly accountable to the public through elections. How is that not directly accountable? ”
I’m going to go through this one more time, even though I think you really get it and are just playing dumb (I just don’t believe that someone to whom the use of language is as important as it is to a lawyer doesn’t understand what “directly accountable” means).
From the American Heritage Dictionary (not some commie pinko rag like the OED): DIRECTLY: “Without anyone or anything intervening: directly responsible”; “Exactly or totally: “At once; instantly.” Accountable “by election” every few years doesn’t meet any of these definitions. 1. An election is a “thing” that is “intervening,” as is “time.” 2. Due to the mechanics of our system, the link between action and accountablity is neither exact or complete. Since, as you have observed yourself, one chooses a condidate with whom they are in greatest agreement, for a specfic action there may be no accoutability at all. 3. Accountablity by election cannot occur at once, or instantly.
The most important point here is #2, and what it implies in addition to what I already said. At best, politicians are only indirectly accountable for some of their actions, usually long after the fact. I do grant that some politicians, primarily those in high executive offices like governors, or the president, are more immediately influenced by poll results, but positioning by poll doesn’t constitute accountability.
As an aside, I just read why Judge Greer’s ruling was so fucked-up: apparently he is a conservative Southern Baptist. Go figure.
April 1st, 2005 @ 4:51 pm
Viole, I just want to say that I consider you to be my favorite communist. Why? Because I sense that yours is a practical rather than a dogmatic affiliation. In other words, you very clearly operate from pinciples that you put ahead of dogma and partisianship. I prefer a principled person of any ideology to party flacks, “leader” worshippers, and tribalists.
April 1st, 2005 @ 5:51 pm
Herm, this is why I find it so difficult to take you seriously. Are you seriously arguing that an election itself is the intervening thing that prevents politicians from being held directly accountable? (An election is a “thing” that is “intervening,” as is “time.”) And that because they only occur every few years politicians are not really being held accountable?
Ok, I’ve had enough. I’d rather argue with the communist.
April 2nd, 2005 @ 1:21 am
Thanks, Herm. I’ve a good deal of respect for your opinions, so that means quite a bit to me. If it helps explain things, hypocrisy ranks right up there with enablers and fear-mongers on my list of most hated things. I could hardly criticize theists for blindly following a church while blindly followed the CPUSA(If I did that, I would have had to vote for Kerry. Remember that Communists for Kerry site put up by the Republicans? I found that terribly ironic. Because the Communist Party of the United States of America encouraged it members to vote for Kerry, and in fact had members working for the Kerry campaign. Their expected benefit; the freedom to continue working to implement communism.) Blind obedience to unquestioned dogma is very nearly the straightest path to failure.
Michael;
The founders had a lot more common sense that the current political leadership, I’ll grant you that. However, they were rich white men, with goals and aims of their own. I’ve never seen a source claiming the Founders established the electoral college because they were afraid aspiring presidents would ignore fly-over country without it. I’d always heard the intention was to prevent the ignorant masses from electing someone who would be bad for them. Since, in my opinion, they’ve managed that already, the Founders are rather irrelevant to the current debate on the electoral college.
I’m inclined to say that after 1992 and 2000, the majority of people are going to be absolutely disgusted with their current party of choice before considering a vote for a third party. Clearly, voting for a third party makes both your preferred and less-of-two-evils candidate lose. For the record, I voted my preference, not Democratic, and don’t agree with this argument.
I used Republicans as an example because Bush was the incumbent, and earlier portions of this post will probably make it clear that I don’t think the Dems cover the left half of the false political dichotomy. I might be biased toward the Dems, but they don’t promote my views.
April 2nd, 2005 @ 3:48 am
“Herm, this is why I find it so difficult to take you seriously.”
I get the impression you have great difficultly with a lot of things ; not the least of which is taking anyone who disagrees with you seriously. You think smart, principled people, like Lew Rockwell, are not just wrong, but “ridiculous” in their opinions –just nuts on the “fringe”– but you vote for, and apparently support, an actual nut, ignorant and incurious, who thinks he’s on a mission from God, and who may well be the most unprincipled man ever to hold the office –a guy who makes Clinton look like a Boy Scout.
What I really find pathetic is that you’re a lawyer, and what are you posting so passionately about? suspension of habeus corpus? indifinite detention of US citizens without trial? “free-speech” zones? administration orders to torture prisoners in our custody? Patriot Act sneak and peak provisions and other now sanctioned government conduct that would have put members of the Nixon administration in jail? the drug war assault on the fourth amendment? Nope.
Of course, to you I guess, these things are only the concern of nuts like Bob Barr and Lew Rockwell. You’re concerned that a Southern Baptist judge didn’t render a decision you agree with on a case that that has been reviewed or considered and rejected all the way up to the US Supreme Court, about an unfortunate woman who has essentially been dead for the last 15 years. You haven’t been party to the court proceedings or actually observed court testimony, but you’ve read about it (a lot you say, but not enough to know what standard of evidence was applied), and followed it in the media, so you consider your judgement superior to the man who actually tried the case.
On this basis you support executive intervention in the courts all the way up to the president of the United States; and because some spouses are assholes, you support letting self-serving politicans try the most private decisions between husband and wife in the media by a jury of misinformed total strangers sitting in front of their televisions, in the grip of their emotions.
Yet you seem to have the expectation that you be taken seriously. I only have one question for you. Quoting Steve Martin: “how can you be so fuckin’ funny?”
April 2nd, 2005 @ 7:15 am
I’d always heard the intention [of the electoral college] was to prevent the ignorant masses from electing someone who would be bad for them.
That’s pretty much as misinformed as a person can get on the subject. I was waiting for confirmation of the suggestion above that Viole is in fact a communist, and now that she’s given it all I can say is: That makes perfect sense! No wonder she’s so mixed up about fascism and so intellectually averse to Friedrich Hayek.
As for my pal, Herm, who hasn’t written a true word about my actual arguments in his last dozen comments, I’m going to take the advice I should have taken from the start: “Never argue with an idiot, people may not be able to tell the difference.”
Fire away, guys, ’cause, quoting the Eagles, I’m already gone.
April 2nd, 2005 @ 9:14 am
What a disappointment. I always prefer to debate with people who think you’re an idiot if you don’t agree with them. They’re so easy to get along with. I suppose I should have told him where he could stick his arrogant opinion after his first post.
April 2nd, 2005 @ 1:21 pm
Dammit! an argument about third parties, elections, and the electoral college and I missed it! Oh well.
April 2nd, 2005 @ 2:27 pm
I was waiting for confirmation of the suggestion above that Michael C is in fact a theist, and now that he’s given it all I can say is: That makes perfect sense! No wonder he’s so mixed up about reality and so intellectually averse to anything that goes against the religious and political dogma of his tribe.
April 2nd, 2005 @ 11:19 pm
At what cost life? Sometimes I feel callous in my views about how much money we spend to keep someone alive. Terri Schiavo was definitely alive, but she certainly couldn’t be described as a person. Her personhood was gone 15 years ago…alive yes, human yes, person no. What do we amount to when we are merely a living human? A piece of meat only kept from rotting away by a feeding tube and/or a respirator? This is how we spend money? Is life really so precious? If it is so precious then why are there so many people, especially children, who die needlessly around the world every week? Anyway, I’d be interested if anyone knows what Peter Singer has to say about this case.
April 6th, 2005 @ 2:49 pm
All of you non-believers are doomed! when jesus comes again all of the True Christians are going to just disappear, just like in the left behind series. and you pagans will be left here to deal with the plagues and each other. You think that you all are so smart with your activism and your websites, we’ll see how smart you are when satan devours your soul!
GLORY!
April 6th, 2005 @ 2:51 pm
All of you non-believers are doomed! when jebus comes again all of the True Christians are going to just disappear, just like in the left behind series. and you pagans will be left here to deal with the plagues and each other. You think that you all are so smart with your activism and your websites, we’ll see how smart you are when satan devours your soul!
April 6th, 2005 @ 2:54 pm
saved 18, you dumbass, most people can’t wait for all the christians to disappear! The world will be a much improved place for it. Why not go now you retarded cocksmoker?
April 6th, 2005 @ 3:52 pm
hermesten — if you haven’t figured it out by now (and, as you are apparently a reader of Lew Rockwell, I know you have) a president doesn’t have to adhere to his constitutional boundries in order to be judged “a good president” by the American people. Just take a look at Abraham Lincoln. He constantly rates as the top president in polls and he just flat suspended the constitution and claimed powers he did not have. He invented the practices of suspending habeus corpus and imprisoning U.S. citizens indefinitely with no cause. He ordered the arrest of the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and of Maryland state legislators who were “suspected” of leaning toward voting for secession.
Jeffersonian principles like free speech, limited government, and consent of the governed meant nothing to him. Apparently they mean little more to our “leaders” today. People claim that “history will judge fairly” but that is not always the case.